Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Cattle Cull

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the selective cull scheme in the north-west. [13102]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): A scheme booklet will be available shortly and will be distributed to beef and dairy farmers, setting out the arrangements for the selective cull throughout Great Britain.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: It seems probable that farmers in the north-west will have to import cattle to replace those taken out by the selective cull. Bearing in mind the fact that bovine spongiform encephalopathy exists in other countries, can my hon. Friend assure the House about the health status of any cattle that may be imported?

Mr. Baldry: It is likely that a large proportion of the replacement animals will be bred in the United Kingdom. There is already evidence of farmers rearing more animals to replace culled stock. Trade in live animals between member states and the importation of live animals from third countries are subject to detailed animal health rules, most of which are harmonised within the European Community. The rules lay down precise conditions for trade, including a requirement that consignments are accompanied by health certification, signed by an official veterinarian in the exporting country.

Mr. Olner: How many of the carcases have been disposed of during the selective cull? I am led to believe that the number is very small. Perhaps the Minister could inform the House on the matter.

Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two schemes. The selective, accelerated cull has only just started—the tracing has just begun. As soon as the animals are taken, they will be slaughtered and incinerated. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that with the over-30-months scheme, under which, to get rid of the backlog of 1.3 million cattle, it was necessary to store some carcases to maximise rendering capacity.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I support the gist of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe

and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd)? There have been problems with the veterinary inspection and certification of imported cattle. As we shall have to import more cattle, there are serious concerns to be addressed about the standards of veterinary inspection and certification in some European member states, although everyone in the House will have full confidence in the veterinary profession in this country.

Mr. Baldry: The veterinary rules are harmonised throughout the Community. If we come across any examples of other member states not being up to standard, it is important that we deal with them. The House recognises that we have to get on with the selective cull to fulfil the Florence agreement. That means that farmers must have replacement animals. I hope that the majority can come from the United Kingdom herd.

Sea Defences

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Ministry has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into different methods of sea defence. [13105]

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Ministry invests more than £1.5 million annually on strategic research aimed at ensuring a better understanding of coastal processes and stimulating the use of new techniques in the design of flood and coastal defences. We also issue guidance to operating authorities.

Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I also thank him for taking the trouble to come to my constituency to see the experiment in managed setback that is taking place at Tollesbury? He will be aware from his visit that there is concern in the farming community about the possible adoption of managed setback as a widespread method of sea defence. Will he assure me that no decision will be taken until there has been a full and proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of such a policy?

Mr. Boswell: I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend's constituency and looking at the fascinating managed setback experiment at Tollesbury creek. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is an experiment. It is part of our effort to inform ourselves on the various options available which will be considered as part of the Essex shoreline management plan. As a native of that county, I am conscious of the fact that, with 250 miles of sea walls, it will not be the automatic expectation or recourse to retreat and avoid our responsibilities. We shall consider the appropriate solutions, having regard to various criteria and informed by research. There is no hidden agenda.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister referred to best design. Is not the best design of coastal defence actually the sand dune? What is being done to protect sand dunes, especially from those who want sand for commercial purposes?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point in respect of particular parts of our coastline. I have seen some fascinating activity designed to build up sand dunes


and reinforce natural defences. We all now know much more about various options that allow the nap to work with the grain of nature rather than fight against it. Clearly, sand dunes represent an important opportunity in Tollesbury, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) referred, where there is the possibility of recreating a salt marsh as part of the natural defences.

Genetically Modified Food

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to enable consumers to make a choice over whether or not to consume genetically modified soya and maize. [13106]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We intend to continue to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to provide information for consumers about the use of these products.

Mr. Pickthall: No doubt the Minister is well briefed on public anxieties about genetically modified ingredients in food. Does she agree that consumers should be free to choose non-genetically modified food and that their freedom depends on accurate labelling? Will she join United Kingdom producers and retailers in campaigning to get Monsanto, the American firm, to segregate genetically modified food from non-genetically modified food to allow for such labelling? Will she urge the Commission to reinstate its ban on unprocessed genetically modified maize?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman touches on exactly the point in the production chain where segregation is needed—right at the beginning. Under legislation, it is not possible for me to ban a product; but, as he rightly pointed out, it is possible for the people who are sourcing the product to stipulate quite accurately whether or not they will buy genetically modified foods. I had a series of meetings with the industry on 7 January to discuss exactly this point. Some companies, such as Iceland and Tesco, have publicly said that they are making that a requirement. The hon. Gentleman will know that three committees of the Commission examined the issue which he raised. They decided not to change their mind about it and we are bound by Commission rules in terms of what we can and cannot ban in this country.

Sir Donald Thompson: Arising directly out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), clearly the new food safety council will need to be carefully harmonised with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and other advisory councils, otherwise there will be duplication and a muddle, which would be unusual for the Ministry.

Mrs. Browning: The chief food safety adviser will have an overview of all the committees. In respect of the matter that we are discussing, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes chaired by Professor Burke has been in place for many years to scrutinise and examine applications for genetically modified foods. We believe that strict scrutiny is necessary—something that is not available in other countries such as the United

States—and we are pleased that the European Union has now adopted the British system whereby an advisory committee makes recommendations to Government. The point that my hon. Friend raised means that, when a chief food safety officer is appointed, he or she will also have the opportunity to comment on the advice that the Government receive and how they put it into policy.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister may have seen early-day motion 280, which I tabled more than two months ago and which gained all-party support from Members. Does she accept the view of the Consumers Association published in today's Which?, which suggests that she and her colleagues throughout Europe may be simply too late to be able to guarantee segregation of genetically modified ingredients in our foodstuffs? Is it not a classic case of the horse charging around the countryside, having long since bolted, while we are trying only now to shut the stable door?

Mrs. Browning: I wish the hon. Gentleman would do his homework a little more carefully. We have just agreed, in December, with the European Commission—a body of which the hon. Gentleman and his party are very much in favour—that we should have Europewide regulation in this matter. It has been the United Kingdom Government who have been pressing—

Mr. Skinner: In the lead.

Mrs. Browning: I could not have put it better myself. I notice that today's Consumers Association report does not question in any way the safety of the product. It raises the point about labelling—

Mr. Tyler: And segregation.

Mrs. Browning: And segregation. As a Minister I cannot insist on segregation; if I were to insist that only segregated crops came into this country, I would be in contravention, first, of European Union rules and, secondly, of World Trade Organisation rules. It is a matter of the industry, of which we are very supportive, sourcing its product by making it very clear what it will and will not buy.

Dr. Strang: Following on from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will she make it clear that the Government accept the principle that consumers should be able to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods? That means that there has to be proper labelling and segregation at the point of production. Is it not of concern that genetically modified maize incorporates a gene that confers a resistance to the antibiotic Ampicillin and that there is a danger that such resistance will be transferred to humans? Having failed to block the entry of that maize at European level, what are the Government doing about it?

Mrs. Browning: The Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, which looked at genetically modified maize, gave the product its approval, but added a caveat. The caveat was not sufficient for it not to allow the approval to come forward as a recommendation to Ministers. The committee stipulated, however, that work


was needed in respect of unprocessed modified maize that could go into animal feed. We accepted that and took that case to Europe. Three committees of the European Commission looked at the advice of Professor Burke's committee that was given to us, and rejected the case.
I have just given the hon. Gentleman an account of why it is not in legal terms possible for Ministers to block entry into this country. However, there is an opportunity for the industry, which we are supporting, to make it very clear what it will and will not buy. For our part, I can tell him that we will take forward work and research and look at the effects—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Too late.

Mrs. Browning: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shouting out, "Too late." We have an extremely good and well-qualified advisory committee, whose advice the Government take. If European committees do not accept that advice, we are subject to qualified majority voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands how that works. Unfortunately, the European committees did not accept our committee's advice.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress in the intergovernmental conference on raising the standards of animal welfare across the European Union. [13107]

Mrs. Browning: Discussions continue on our proposal for a protocol on animal welfare, which will place a legally binding obligation on Community institutions. I am pleased to report an encouraging response.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to hear that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much opposition in this country to the export of any live animals? In recognising that that trade is however, likely to continue, will she assure us that the progress being made in the intergovernmental conference will result in other European countries applying the same high standards on the issue as we have?

Mrs. Browning: That is our exact objective. It would place a legal obligation on the Community to take account of welfare requirements. I believe that we have a very good record in this country on the transportation of animals, which my hon. Friend particularly mentioned. We would like such standards to be applied and enforced throughout the Community.

Mr. Sheerman: When will the Government stop wringing their hands and give consumers a choice? In terms of animal welfare, what consumers want is to be able to walk into a shop or supermarket and buy a product made from an animal that they know has been treated humanely over its lifetime. Whether we are talking about animals or genetically modified food, the Government do not seem to understand that consumers want a good clear choice.

Mrs. Browning: Under new Labour, people probably do not do their own shopping any more—I suspect that

they send out for the groceries in Islington now—so I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if one goes into a supermarket, as most of us do every week, one finds that there is a choice. I am sorry that he has not heard of Freedom Foods, for example, which offers a range of foods and is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [Interruption.] First the hon. Gentleman asks for something, then he denigrates those who are trying to provide it. He has demonstrated clearly that he is just making a bit of noise, and does not know what goes on in supermarkets. There is choice, and it is up to the consumer to decide whether to support those schemes, which sometimes add a few more pennies to the price of the product.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that many advances in the treatment of animals—those in relation to veal crates and transport conditions, for example—have been achieved in the teeth of European opposition? Does she also agree that, if we had not been content to be isolated in Europe, we would not have achieved those advances, whereas the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to be isolated in Europe?

Mrs. Browning: Absolutely. My hon. Friend speaks with the experience of representing a farming community, and he will be aware how important it is to farmers that farm animal welfare and animal transport be considered at a European level. It is not simply a question of what goes on here; we can do things on our own, as we have with veal crates, sow stalls and tethers, but that does not offer much comfort about what goes on over the channel. The Government have pressed for, and achieved, much better standards of animal welfare at the European level.

Mr. Tony Banks: Before the Minister starts patting herself and her colleagues on the head, will she tell me why we are exporting eight and 10-week-old piglets to Spain and France, especially when we know how intelligent those creatures are? What is happening about leghold traps? What progress is being made? I understand that Commissioner Brittan is ensuring that the ban on such traps will not be introduced. What is he doing for animal welfare in the European Union?

Mrs. Browning: I have received correspondence about consignments of piglets. The hon. Gentleman will know that, if people bring to our attention individual cases in which they believe the law has not been applied, I shall investigate them. I looked into the cases concerned, and I am satisfied that the animal welfare conditions were observed.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend make a vigorous protest to the Government of Greece about the fact that, during the recent lorry drivers' strike, horses were kept in horse boxes or lorries without food or water for eight days and then transported 1,500 miles to slaughter? Is it not time the Government of Greece and many other European Governments learned a bit about animal welfare?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed, but when we want to influence countries whose cultural background means that they take a very different view of such matters, it is no good simply castigating them. The Government have


spent many hours talking and negotiating with other countries and we have, for example, secured a Europewide agreement on animal transport, which is about to be applied. That will cover Greece, and I assure the House that, once the laws are in place, we shall expect the Commission to apply them, whether in Greece or anywhere else.

Mr. Morley: It is true that most people in this country do not support the live export of animals for slaughter; so it was surprising to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting defending that practice. Does he not believe that most British farmers want their animals to be slaughtered in British slaughterhouses as near as possible to the point of production, so that value is added to British meat exports, rather than to be exported live for slaughter? The Minister also criticised the Labour party for receiving a substantial donation from the International Fund for Animal Welfare—a donation that we, unlike the Conservative party, made public. As the Conservatives have also accepted a substantial donation from the same organisation, will that donation now be repaid?

Mrs. Browning: On the last point, discussions are in hand. On the wider point, it is in everyone's interest to add as much value as possible to exports on this side of the channel. However, that is very different from the position of some Labour Members who have campaigned for the total banning of live animal exports and who signed an early-day motion on the matter some years ago. The hon. Gentleman will know that we export breeding pigs and, at one time, we exported nearly 400,000 calves—a trade that Opposition Members wanted to ban. These animals are now slaughtered when they are less than 20 days old. We will always need provisions for some live animal exports, and our objective is to make sure that conditions for those exports are good and are enforced—particularly on journeys on the other side of the channel.

Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that all the farmers whom I meet in Worcestershire are rightly proud of the high standards of animal welfare that they maintain on their farms? Would not Opposition Members and animal welfare groups be better employed supporting the British Government in their efforts to ensure that the same standards of animal welfare are maintained on the other side of the channel?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If a person breaks the law either on farm or in transport, he or she must be brought to book. I always welcome people bringing information on any individual to me so that cases can be properly investigated. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that farmers in this country have been the best custodians of farm animal welfare. We have a good message to send, and it is one that we shall try to enforce throughout the Community.

Beef Exports

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the lifting of the ban on United Kingdom beef exports. [13109]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I met the Agriculture Commissioner on 28 January to discuss our proposals for a certified herds scheme. We will submit those proposals in writing in the next few weeks and will press the Commission for an urgent decision.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the beef ban still 100 per cent. in place? Following the Florence agreement, did not the Prime Minister come here and say that the ban would be lifted by November? The Minister has mentioned that he has not yet submitted the proposals on certified herds, despite the fact that that matter has been raised and discussed in the House on numerous occasions. The Government jump about from place to place—so much that one would think that the agreement was not from Florence but from Zebedee.

Mr. Hogg: We have now implemented all five of the Florence agreement preconditions, and we are now looking to the European states to honour their part of the bargain.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his counterparts in Europe, will he give them the latest figures on BSE? Can he confirm that, last year, there was a further and dramatic decline in the number of reported cases?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right. I am glad to say that the numbers of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom are falling year on year by about 40 per cent., and we hope to see the effective end of the disease in the United Kingdom national herd by around 2001. The latest figures I have—which may be of interest to the House—are as follows: in 1994, there were 23,944 confirmed cases; in 1995, that had fallen to 14,076; in 1996, the number of confirmed cases as presently assessed was 7,202. More pathological tests are to be completed, but that shows the trend.

Mr. William Ross: Even after the cull is completed, the EC will still have to satisfy itself that any region of the United Kingdom is free from BSE. Will the Minister therefore press ahead with all speed to ensure that, as each region of the UK is certified as free from BSE, the EC will investigate and confirm that that is so? Will he also urge his noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to do what she can to sort out the problem of the suckler herd holdings?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has always been concerned about the flagged herds. I understand that, and I know that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary shares that concern.
We are indeed anxious to proceed with the slaughter as rapidly as possible. I anticipate that in Great Britain the slaughter will start before the end of the month, and we have already begun the process of tracing. I hope that we will complete the tracing and most of the slaughter within six months or so, and we are certainly anxious to involve the Commission by way of inspections and reports.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that the ban was wrong and unjustified in the first place; that the Government's actions since it was


imposed in March last year have meant that beef in this country is of the highest quality and free from any risk; and that, if only the rest of the European Union would take the same measures on specified bovine offals and meat and bonemeal, the same would be true there?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I share his view that British beef is the best and the safest in Europe. It is important that the European Union should agree to a proper offal regime in its abattoirs, as we have in ours. I regret the fact that the Agriculture Council decided not to accept those proposals from the Commission. It would be enormously helpful if the European Union would copy our measures in mainland Europe, so that the prohibition on the use of meat and bonemeal in food rations was extended to all farm animals.

Dr. Strang: Is it the case that the Minister did not find time yesterday to apologise to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union for the fact that the Government have delayed the lifting of the beef ban by a whole six months by shelving the Florence agreement? Is it also the case that he did find time to insult his audience with a pack of nonsense about the Labour party?
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) reminded us, the Prime Minister said in July that the beef ban would be lifted in November. Will the Minister tell the House when he now expects the ban to be lifted?

Mr. Hogg: I had a very interesting discussion with the National Farmers Union yesterday, in which I made a number of points, one of which was that, in respect of BSE-related expenditure, we had committed £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax. I asked whether those attending supposed that the Labour party would have done that; it was clear that they did not. When I raised the matter of the near certainty of the Labour party removing relief for inheritance tax purposes from agricultural land, I noticed that they all agreed with that. On the selective cull, I did not have to remind them, because they know full well that until October they were opposed to it.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to remind our European counterparts that in this country we have slaughtered 1.3 million predominantly healthy cattle; that we propose under the Florence agreement to slaughter a further 100,000 or so predominantly healthy cattle; and that, as he has just reminded the House, this process is costing the British taxpayer—predominantly, with some help from Europe—more than £3 billion? As we have public debates in the country over the next few weeks, not only the farming community but the taxpayers will show their resentment at the continued discrimination against British beef by our European counterparts, and at their failure to put their own house in order.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's points are correct in every respect.

Food Safety

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bodies and committees his Ministry consults regularly on food safety policies; and how many of these represent scientific interests. [13110]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Ministry of Agriculture takes advice on food safety issues from a wide range of advisory committees, most of which are able to advise on scientific issues.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister remember that, 12 months ago, the Prime Minister rubbished the Labour party proposal to set up a food standards agency, yet his Department recently announced the setting up of a food safety council? Is that not another U-turn by his discredited Government? Is it not an attempt to steal Labour's clothes? Can he assure us that the council will not be a tame tabby cat for food companies but will instead defend the rights of the consumer?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rubbished Labour's proposals because they were rubbish, and they remain so, in so far as I understand them. The essential difference between our proposals and those that emanate from the Opposition is that, in so far as there is any substance in Labour's proposals, they combine the function of the implementing authority with that of the commentating supervisory authority. Such a body would commentate on that which it had done. We propose to separate those functions, so that Ministers are responsible for the implementation, setting and carrying through of policy, and for explaining it as and when necessary. The council and the adviser have a duty and ability to express in public their view on food safety, including the appropriateness of the policies of the Government of the day. That is by far the most effective way of reassuring the public.

Sir Irvine Patnick: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on setting up the food safety committee. Will he now direct his attention to other food committees, and especially to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee? What will he do about that?

Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations, which are always happily received. We want to find ways of yet further reinforcing the authority of the specialist advisory committees, and we shall do so in the context of the proposal for the food safety council. We are examining SEAC's terms of reference, and its structure, membership and operation, with special regard to the points that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and I made on March 20.

Mrs. Golding: When did the Minister first realise that the public had lost confidence in his ability to deal with food safety?

Mr. Hogg: I have recognised for some time—

Mrs. Golding: Too little, too late.

Mr. Hogg: I am answering the question. I have no reason to be less than candid with the House. I have


recognised for some time that the public—this has probably been true for many years—has been rather sceptical about what Ministers and officials say about food safety. I have addressed that problem robustly and vigorously by proposing to set up an independent adviser and an independent council. I look forward to support from the hon. Lady because I am meeting her anxieties.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about reforming the European fisheries policy. [13113]

Mr. Baldry: I have recently received a wide range of representations about reforming the European fisheries policy, including proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend welcome the news that Emma Bonino, at a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), local Essex fishermen and me, agreed with our criticism of the common fisheries policy and said that it needed urgent reform? Will he also reflect on the recent meeting with local Essex fishermen and, in particular, on their point about regional management?

Mr. Baldry: Everyone agrees, including Emma Bonino, that the common fisheries policy needs reforming. I welcomed the opportunity of meeting Essex fishermen with my hon. Friend. I am considering the points that they put to me and if, as I suspect, I conclude that different arrangements need to be put in place on the temporary closure of the North sea sole fishery, I shall consult the industry. I am well aware of the problems facing non-sector fisherman in Essex and elsewhere, which is why we introduced, in 1995, underpinning or guaranteed minimum quota allocations for non-sector fisheries, including North sea sole and cod. For 1997, I have extended underpinning to a wider range of stocks important to non-sector fishermen, such as North sea plaice and whiting, because I want to ensure that the fishermen of Essex and elsewhere have a viable future.

Dr. Godman: One much-needed reform would be a complete ban on industrial fishing. Does the Minister agree that industrial fishing is deeply harmful, particularly to juvenile members of commercially valuable species? Does he also agree that our once-rich seas are being swept clean, and one of the major culprits is the industrial fishing vessel?

Mr. Baldry: It was for exactly those reasons that I pressed successfully in the Fisheries Council for measures to reduce herring mortality in industrial fisheries. Just as importantly, I pressed to include industrial fisheries in the first tranche of activities, subject to satellite monitoring, and insisted that industrial fisheries had a much higher position in the next round of decommissioning. It is crazy that the Commission's proposals for decommissioning did not adequately have regard to industrial fishing and its impact in the North sea and elsewhere.

Mr. Bellingham: Has the fisheries Minister heard recent reports of fishermen who have been out fishing in the Wash for sprat and have caught herring, which, under CFP rules, must be thrown back into the sea dead? Is that not yet another reason why the CFP needs root and branch reform?

Mr. Baldry: We always have difficulty with mixed fisheries such as we have around our coasts. The whole question of discards causes understandable offence and we must constantly try to find policies that minimise the need for discards.

Cattle Cull

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the storage of slaughtered cattle. [13114]

Mr. Baldry: To speed up clearance of the backlog of cattle that were awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme, some 69,000 tonnes of cattle remains, excluding specified bovine material, were placed in cold storage pending the availability of rendering capacity. In addition, dry storage is being used for scheme material that has already been rendered pending its destruction.

Dr. Jones: Who is paying the £250,000 weekly cost of that storage? Less than 4 per cent. of the cattle have been disposed of properly by incineration. What is the Minister doing to reduce that cost, and to allay the anxiety that meat from those carcases—thousands of carcases kept in cold storage—could find its way into butchers' shops?

Mr. Baldry: It is helpful to remember that any cattle that exhibit clinical signs of BSE are disposed of immediately by direct incineration, and that specified bovine material is removed from all scheme cattle and sent direct for rendering, so no specified bovine material has been placed in cold storage. The use of cold storage was necessary to clear the backlog of OTMS cattle as quickly as possible and to maximise the use of a limited rendering capacity. Speed was of the essence to avoid potential animal welfare problems on farms as winter drew near, and to pave the way for a start to selective culling. The backlog is now cleared; no more material is being put into cold store, and clearly we shall get rid of the material in cold storage and get it rendered as speedily as is humanly possible.
The use of dry storage for rendered material was unavoidable pending a valuation of the best option for the destruction of that material. In deciding on the best option, full regard will obviously be given to protecting human health and the environment.

Mr. Garnier: Is there sufficient storage for, or the capacity to dispose of, any cattle slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. I do not see the accelerated slaughter scheme in any way making more difficult our disposal problems with the over-30-months scheme.

Food Safety

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in the past six months from consumer groups on his policies on food safety; and if he will make a statement. [13115]

Mrs. Browning: We have had meetings and correspondence with a number of consumer groups on various food safety issues.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister confirm that, following the announcement of the intention to establish a food safety council, the majority of responses from consumer groups have said that the proposals are inadequate and do not go far enough? Will the Minister tell the House why those same consumer bodies were not consulted before the announcement instead of afterwards?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon gave the House a clear outline as to the independence of that food safety adviser and the council that he or she will chair. We believe that here at the Dispatch Box is the right place for Ministers to be accountable and to defend their policy—but if they get the policy wrong, or if the experts believe that they have not implemented it properly, they will be called to book and that will be done publicly. I am always interested to hear the views of consumer bodies, to which we speak on a regular basis, but that independence is key.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13132]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will know, because I gave him advance notification of this question, that, last year, the Secretary of State for Health visited my constituency to open the new £7.5 million trauma and burns unit at Selly Oak hospital. People were relieved because they thought that, at last, the future of the hospital was secure, but now there is again talk of its closure. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be barmy to close those brand-new facilities and those in the sister Queen Elizabeth hospital? Does he realise that local people do not trust his Government on health—especially when they know that the Secretary of State for Health does not rely on the NHS and takes out private health insurance?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice, an hour or so ago, that she proposed to ask that question and I have made some inquiries in the interim I understand that the health authority is

examining how best to deliver patient services. That is part of a process that, as the hon. Lady will concede, is in the interests of the health service in her region and has already resulted in improved care, more in-patients, more out-patients and more day care.
On the specific point, I understand that the trust has taken no such decisions and that local media items have been misleading. If, at any stage in the future, substantial plans for change were to be made, they would at that stage have to be subject to full public consultation.

Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the inspired decision to give passports to 5,000 stateless south Asians in Hong Kong? Does he recognise that those families are major wealth creators in Hong Kong and that, as British passport holders, they will enable Britain to become not only the enterprise centre of Europe, but the enterprise centre of the whole world?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I made it clear when I went to Hong Kong last year that I wanted the ethnic minorities to be assured about their future. I am aware of the widespread concern that there has been in both Houses, as well as in Hong Kong, about their nationality status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore decided that they can register as British citizens, with a right to abode here after 30 June. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority—perhaps even all—will continue to reside in Hong Kong, where they will continue to have a right of abode, but they were potentially stateless and they now have a nationality.

Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, he has doubled the national debt?

The Prime Minister: I can also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a single economy in Europe that can match our performance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see debt rise further, and to see the British economy fail rather than succeed, he should follow the policies of the social model to which he is committed in Europe, with the results that we have seen in Europe.

Mr. Blair: Perhaps for once we can get a straight answer to a straight question. We now pay out on interest payments on debt every year more than we spend on law and order and transport put together. Can the Prime Minister just answer that simple question? Can he confirm that, since he became Prime Minister—he is the only Prime Minister since the war of which this can be said—he has doubled the national debt? Yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman spent the whole of the recession encouraging us to spend money to assist people in need. [Interruption.] He invites us to do one thing one day and something quite different the other. He says different things abroad and at home. At least on this occasion he seems to be seeking to quote me, not President Clinton.

Mr. Blair: Perhaps I can quote the right hon. Gentleman again. Does he not recall saying that he would be the Prime Minister who would balance the budget? Does he not recognise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]


They complain about us. We have been trying to save the Government money over the past few weeks while he and his rag-bag of outgoing Ministers have been spraying around the post-dated cheques like there was no tomorrow. [Interruption.] Is that not true? Record borrowing, record tax increases and still they cannot run decent public services. Is that not typical of the Tories—unfair and incompetent in equal measure?

The Prime Minister: I suppose there was never a chance that the right hon. Gentleman was going to debate the real issues of today, on which the shadow Chancellor has landed him in such trouble. I will tell him about the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I really am getting very weary of barracking from a sedentary position, particularly from Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Skinner: That puts me in the clear.

The Prime Minister: I can for once agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): he is not barracking from the Front Bench, and I doubt that he ever will be.
The comparisons I can safely offer the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are comparisons between this country's performance on unemployment and that of every other country in Europe; this country's performance on the recovery and that of every other country in Europe; this country's performance on exports and that of other countries; and this country's performance on manufacturing exports and that of other countries. The right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge just for once the success of British industry, the British economy and the British nation, instead of trying to do it damage.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain is attracting more investment from throughout the world than any other European country? Is it not the case, however, that the social chapter would destroy jobs and drive out investment? What advice will he give to business leaders who have been invited to shell out £7,500 to attend a fund-raising banquet hosted by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Seven thousand, five hundred pounds for a meal with the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition seems deeply engaged in conversation. He is perhaps persuading the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to cough up and come to the luncheon.

Mr. Ashdown: I was interested to hear the Prime Minister admit in his previous answer that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong were potentially going to be left stateless, as he specifically denied that in answer to a question that I asked him along those lines three months ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he did.
On the issue of public service pay, is it not now perfectly clear that the Government are trying to take fair pay for our nurses and teachers and turn it into yet another exercise in political point scoring for the general election? Are we expected seriously to believe that a Government who can find £1 billion to pay their own private consultants and advertisers cannot fund a modest pay rise for teachers that is perfectly affordable and a pay rise for nurses that has already been budgeted for?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few minutes for the decisions on public sector pay, which will be fair to the public sector and fair to the taxpayer. If he says that that is entirely affordable, why is he promising to put up tax by a penny in the pound to pay for the teachers? Why is he planning to do that? The right hon. Gentleman does not know what the decisions are, does not understand the issues and yet again asks questions based on utter nonsense.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to compare the position of a manufacturer in my constituency with that of his German competitor, who happens to be a friend? The German manufacturer in Bavaria is required to give each employee, every year, 29 days holiday, and an additional 13 days holiday for the religious holidays, which is more than eight weeks holiday in the year. Furthermore, it is sometimes the habit for people to arm themselves with a medical certificate and spend three weeks at Baden Baden.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to the different costs of the social model in Europe and the impact that that has had on unemployment.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Germans are very successful.

The Prime Minister: There is an increase of half a million in German unemployment. I doubt whether those half a million Germans consider that very successful. Business costs across Europe are costing jobs. For every £100 spent on wages in Britain, there is an extra £15 for non-wage costs. In Germany that figure is £31, in France £41 and in Italy £44. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may shake his head, but those are the facts of the matter. That is why business men across Europe—including, for example, the head of the German firm BASF—have said in the past few days:
Britain is the best place in Europe to invest.

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13133]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cummings: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the doctors and nursing staff at St. Benedict's hospice in Sunderland on their pioneering integrated assessment of palliative care, which has been acclaimed internationally? While recognising the importance of the voluntary and charitable sectors in supporting hospices, what steps is he taking to ensure a national policy on hospice care?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the particular details of St. Benedict's. From what the hon. Gentleman says, its staff have clearly done an outstanding job. If that is true, I am happy to add my congratulations to them and to the hospice movement as a whole. I have had the opportunity of knowing personally of the remarkable work done by the hospice movement, which is truly astonishing. It has the Government's support and will continue to have it.

Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend find time between now and 1 May to visit the Vale of Glamorgan—a particularly interesting constituency—in order to see for himself the benefits of low taxes, low inflation, the absence of the social chapter, and deregulation in attracting inward investment to south Wales?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend offers me an extremely enticing invitation, which I shall carefully consider. Were I to take the opportunity of visiting every part of the United Kingdom that had had substantial inward investment, it would probably take me until 1 May next year, because of the Government's remarkable success in encouraging inward investment, as a result of the policies that we have followed over recent years.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13134]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister try to answer the question that he failed to answer on Tuesday? Can he give a categorical assurance that the Wirral, South by-election will take place on 27 February—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have called the Wirral, South by-election, and whatever ingenious ways he tries to produce to entice me to tell him the date of the general election, he will have to wait. The election in Wirral is proceeding.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February [13135]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rise of nearly half a million in German unemployment in January is graphic proof that, as he said in Brussels this week, one signature on the European social chapter is half a million British signatures on the dole? Is not the British approach to competitiveness under the Government working, while the European social chapter, so advocated and loved by the Labour party, is not?

The Prime Minister: It is undeniable that the social model has contributed substantially to unemployment across Europe. The average level of unemployment in Europe is 3.5 per cent. above the rate here. My estimate of an extra half a million unemployed, were we to go down that route is, if anything, an under-estimate and not an over-estimate. A moment ago, I quoted the German head of BASF. I could of course have quoted the head of the Dutch business association who said:
The British way is best.
He went on
There is absolutely no need for a Europe wide set of rules.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the Science and Technology Committee on the prior options reviews of public sector research establishments, followed by a debate on the second report from the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility. That will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. In the afternoon, there will be the Second Reading of the Police Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report) (Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations.
Motion to amend schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
FRIDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 12 February, there will be debate on raw tobacco in European Standing Committee A and a debate on takeover bids in European Standing Committee B. As usual, details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order, the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-Rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order, the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations.
I regret that, once again, I am unable to go beyond that for the business in that week, but the House will wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 19 February there will be a debate on future noise policy in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 12 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 5217/97, Commission Report on Raw Tobacco. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 5147/96, Takeover Bids. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 51-xxix (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).
Wednesday 19 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 11419/96, Future Noise Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House. He announced that the Police Bill [Lords] is to be debated on

Wednesday. Will he make sure that the Home Secretary makes it clear as soon as possible what he intends to do to resolve the problem that was created by the passage in another place of two important but contradictory amendments? I am sure that he agrees that hon. Members should have as much notice as possible of what is to happen on that matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm when the important Firearms (Amendment) Bill will return to the House? He will be aware that, despite the support of the Opposition, the Government were defeated on several occasions in the House of Lords, mainly by the votes of hereditary peers. Therefore, the Bill is in an unsatisfactory state at present. Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure hon. Members that that very important legislation—there is much agreement about the need for change—will be passed as quickly as possible, and that those defeats will not be allowed to delay its passage?
Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time for a debate on the current crisis in further education? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have received representations from colleges throughout the country because of the confusion and chaos created by the Government's decision—taken midway through the funding year—to shift the goalposts. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that an interim decision about future Government policy has been taken within the past 24 hours, although the House has not been told about its possible implications? There has clearly been a significant breach of faith with colleges and students. Neither can plan their future properly until the matter is resolved, and the House is entitled to know exactly what is happening.
Can the right hon. Gentleman shed any light on the Government's intentions in respect of London Underground? Why did the Secretary of State for Transport draft a statement—which I happen to have with me—announcing the privatisation of London Underground, only to back down? What is happening? Will the Leader of the House confirm whether there will be an Opposition day before the Wirral, South by-election—assuming that the House sits that long?

Mr. Newton: As to the Police Bill [Lords], I am not in a position to make the Government's intentions clear in detail today. As the hon. Lady said, contradictory amendments were passed in another place, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will make clear his intentions in that respect as soon as he properly can. He shall certainly bear that in mind in looking ahead to the Second Reading of the Bill next week.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Firearms (Amendment) Bill has not completed its passage in another place. Therefore, convention dictates that I do not comment too much about the matter until the Bill returns to this place. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has signified that he expects to invite the House to modify—I deliberately choose an understated word—some of the amendments passed in another place.
I note the hon. Lady's remarks about further education, and I recall some comments on that subject from Back Benchers last week. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who is


responsible for further education, has written to all FE colleges to provide information about further funding. The Government have also undertaken to make further funding available in the next financial year. In so far as the hon. Lady is making representations about the way in which the matter was handled, I shall ensure that her comments are drawn to my hon. Friend's attention.
I make it clear that there is no question of our altering our position regarding London Underground. We shall make our intentions clear at the appropriate time. We shall not be bounced into making premature announcements by leaks to newspapers—or even to the hon. Lady. I am obviously aware of the Opposition's wish to have an Opposition day—I was able to provide more time this week for the minority parties—and I continue to bear in mind the hon. Lady's wish.

Sir Michael Spicer: As the Opposition seem bent on breaking up the United Kingdom, may we have Government time as soon as possible to debate the future of the British constitution, and could the debate be led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in recent weeks, suggestions for such a debate have been made on a number of occasions, and I have said that I shall consider them as sympathetically as possible. However, he will also have heard the business that I have announced for the week ahead, and he will be aware that there is a great deal of very important legislation on which we need to make progress.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Leader of the House make Government time available to debate the important issue of public sector pay—on which we are expecting to hear an announcement in a few minutes—particularly because of the strongly heralded view that an increase is likely to be staged, despite the Government's own forecasts fully budgeting for a 3.3 per cent. increase for nurses? The difference between what has been budgeted and what has been recommended for teachers' pay is about £80 million, which is well within the amount that could be saved in central Government Departments.
Specifically, the Prime Minister, in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), deliberately misrepresented the Liberal Democrats' position. We have said that we are opposed to a penny cut in income tax, so that all that money can go to reversing the damaging cuts imposed by the Government and to developing further education. The money for the teachers' pay award can come from central Government savings.

Mr. Newton: If there is any confusion about what the Liberal Democrats have said, I can suppose only that it is because of confusion about what the Liberal Democrats say about that and other matters. On his question on public sector pay, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment in advance of the publication of the reports and the Government's recommendations.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill when it returns to the House? Will he also ask him to ensure that any

modifications made fully reflect the very wise and sensible amendments to the Bill—to restore some justice to many innocent people—so wisely passed by the other place?

Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt to add to what I have already said, but I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why do the Leader of the House and Ministers make statements on nurses' and teachers' pay in the form of a written question, instead of making a statement in the House, so that hon. Members can make their position clear? If there is enough money to find £60 million-plus for a royal yacht and enough to pay the fat salary increases of generals, Members of Parliament, Ministers and all the rest of them, why cannot the Government say to nurses and teachers that they will immediately pay the money from the pay review in full?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the practice—for as long as I can remember—has been for the information on those very complex matters to be made available by written answer. He will also know that the reports in question, taken together, are about 3 in thick, and require considerable study. I am sure that he will get down to his homework as soon as he possibly can.

Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend will have seen the Procedure Committee's report, which has just been published, on a new streamlined procedure for tax simplification Bills. It is important that we debate that matter as soon as possible, and, if possible, pass the necessary amendments to Standing Orders. There is a great push—in the Treasury, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the Inland Revenue—for simplification of our complicated tax legislation. The House should facilitate that process, and not be seen as a potential difficulty.

Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, last week, much the same point was made to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee. I gave what I described as a "cautiously sympathetic" reply. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who is a distinguished member of the Committee, will similarly accept both my sympathy and my caution.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: When can the House urgently have an opportunity to debate the continuing misjudgments of the Governor of Hong Kong in chipping away at the international agreements which were brilliantly achieved by Lord Howe, then Foreign Secretary, in 1984 and which this uninformed Governor is immensely damaging? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he managed to educate even an uninformed personality like Lady Thatcher about the realities of what had to develop between China and Hong Kong? Why on earth do HM Government allow this man to persist in damaging those immensely important international relationships?

Mr. Newton: Without in any way accepting for a moment the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument,


which was ingeniously disguised as a question, I simply point out that the House has recently had opportunities to debate Hong Kong, and I certainly cannot envisage another one in the near future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take further the matters raised by the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who asked, respectively, for a Supply day and a debate on constitutional arrangements? Will it be possible in the next two weeks to consider a matter that has been lying around for the past two decades—whether, under some people's proposals, a Scottish Member of Parliament would be able to vote on English education but not on Scottish education?

Mr. Newton: In other words, a debate to see for the umpteenth time whether we can get an answer to the West Lothian question—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Have a debate.

Mr. Newton: Is the hon. Gentleman promising me from a sedentary position that were the Opposition to have a Supply day, they would choose to debate constitutional matters? I should like that in writing.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would the Leader of the House like to calculate exactly how much European legislation in the form of directives is awaiting scrutiny by European Standing Committee A? Will he then explain why the Government perpetually complain about European interference, but refuse absolutely to deal rapidly with the legislation that is pouring out of Brussels? Dealing with it rapidly would enable the House of Commons to know what was really going on, to comment on the legislation and, if need be, amend it before it became damaging, rather than afterwards.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position immediately to give the hon. Lady the statistic that she requested, but I shall make some inquiries. On the more general point, she will know that we have made it clear that we ourselves are not satisfied with the fact that the procedures of the European Union, which can involve delays in Brussels and delays in transmission from Brussels, do not always enable us to scrutinise legislation here as effectively as we and the Committee would wish. We shall make every effort to ensure that matters are improved.

Mr. David Shaw: May we have a debate on unemployment, so that we can get home to people the fact that unemployment in, for example, Dover is half that in Calais, 22 miles away? There are enormous problems in Europe, which must be dealt with; the House must have a proper debate, so that we can explain to the French and Germans that it is because they are following socialist policies, which are being pushed by the Labour party in this country, that they have higher unemployment than us.

Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is underlined by something on

which, to judge from the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, I am not sure hon. Members have yet focused, that is, the truly astonishing rise in unemployment that was announced in Germany today.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House inform the Home Secretary that when the House again debates the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is absolutely essential that the wrecking Lords amendment be overturned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at an event in my constituency last week, I had the honour to meet Mr. and Mrs. Martyn Dunn, whose daughter Charlotte was one of the infants murdered at Dunblane? Is it not now all the more important that the pledge that effective action would be taken over guns—a pledge that was given after the Dunblane massacre—is carried out and that there is no appeasement by the Government?

Mr. Newton: The Government have made it clear that they are undertaking effective action in the wake of that appalling tragedy. Just as I told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) that I would bring his points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, so I shall bring the different points made by the hon. Gentleman to his attention.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: May I support earlier calls for a debate on devolution? Both the main Opposition parties have resolved to set up a rival Parliament in Edinburgh and also, apparently, to set up regional assemblies in England. They would add another tier of bureaucracy in many of our constituencies. As the proposed assembly for the west country would have no defined powers, and we do not know who would sit on it, who would pay for it or which counties would be covered, it would be a fruitful subject for debate and we could learn precisely what the Opposition are planning.

Mr. Newton: I have long held the view that that would indeed be a fruitful subject for debate, although I cannot go beyond what I have said earlier on the matter. I should certainly wish to listen to my right hon. Friend's speech, were it possible for such a debate to take place.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The thickness or otherwise of a Government report should not be what determines whether it should be launched with a statement in the House. The determining factor should be the importance of the measure. Many documents first launched in the House have been massive, including the report of the Scott inquiry. Should not the public sector pay documents be debated here, because this is the proper place to question whatever is contained in them?

Mr. Newton: I made some reply—I think a reasonable one, as always—to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I cannot add to that.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: When my right hon. Friend considers the many calls so far for a debate on the constitution, will he take into account the fact that that subject is not only worthy of a debate in the Chamber, but is arguably the most important subject that we can debate as the custodians in trust of the future of Britain? Such a debate would reveal the wide differences that exist,


between the Conservatives, who want to safeguard the unity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament, and the Opposition, who want to destroy them.

Mr. Newton: I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend says about the importance of that matter. Given the range of proposals that the Opposition appear to have made and the uncertainties about the details, I believe that they should consider using an Opposition day for such a debate.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If the Leader of the House would care to give me an Opposition day, I should be happy to entertain a debate on the constitution.
Will the right hon. Gentleman return to the ridiculous explanation of why we have not had a statement today on public pay? He seemed to suggest that the subject was too complex for us to understand. I suggest that nurses and teachers outside this place understand the reality of a Government who prefer royal yachts and giant domes in Greenwich to properly and adequately funding people who perform vital services. Why are the Government frightened of a debate on spending priorities?

Mr. Newton: The Government are not frightened of a debate on any aspect of their policies or priorities, which they believe to be right. It has been the convention, for as long as I can remember, that details of the Government's proposals and the reports are given in the way that is being done this afternoon. That is reasonable and sensible.

Mr. Bill Walker: May we have an early opportunity to discuss the serious matter that was reported in Scottish newspapers this morning? I believe that the leader of the Labour group on Glasgow council has said that he was offered trips, paid for from the public purse, for votes. That is a result of the current civil war in the Labour party, in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland. The matter is so serious that it must be addressed—and quickly.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend draws attention to what sounds like an important point. Given those at whom the point was directed, the matter should perhaps be considered by Opposition Front Benchers.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the need for the Government to give serious consideration to important matters and the problems of major constitutional issues, but will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is a possibility, before dissolution, that the necessary amendments might be tabled to Standing Orders, to allow the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to meet in the same way as the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees meet? The idea was mooted by the Prime Minister in October.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been having discussions with, I think, all the Northern Ireland parties about that matter. Obviously, we hope that it will prove possible to achieve the necessary consensus that would normally be sought before proceeding with such changes. The hon. Gentleman knows that I should like the changes to proceed as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Prime Minister made an excellent speech in Brussels on

Tuesday, outlining his and the Government's concern about policies in the European Union. The speech was warmly supported by European industrialists, not least, as was mentioned during Prime Minister's questions, a senior executive of BASF, which employs 3,000 people in this country, and a senior executive of ABB, which employs 10,000 people in this country. Could we please have a debate on the Floor of the House, in which the Government could outline to the people of this country and for the benefit of the Opposition why we are so opposed to the minimum wage and the social chapter? We are concerned about the creation of wealth and jobs, which guarantee the future of our country.

Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's views on the merits of my right hon. Friend's speech on the importance of the point that he has made. I shall continue to bear in mind his request for a debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the mounting dismay around the world, from Cambodia to India, Russia—which has lost many icons—and eastern Europe, about heritage treasures turning up on the art markets of Frankfurt, Amsterdam, New York and London? In those circumstances, should there not be a statement next week about the role and responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry on what has apparently been revealed about Sotheby's? The problem goes far beyond one firm. It relates to the international art market and Britain's position in it. Could we have clarification of the government's supervisory responsibilities in that matter?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will, with his characteristic fairness, understand that I do not think it right to comment on a particular case from the Dispatch Box. His more general point is clearly reasonable and I shall make sure that it is brought to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of Channel 4? Does he agree that drug abuse is a serious matter, as will be shown on a sensible television programme on the subject later this evening? Does he also agree that for the chairman, board and chief executive of Channel 4 to sanction and condone a spoof on drug abuse, wasting the time of busy people, is beneath contempt?

Mr. Newton: I have not had an opportunity to see the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, although I am aware of his concern about it. I shall make sure that I see it if I can. I agree with him about the importance of the problem—indeed, I chair the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Drug Misuse.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on the condition and circumstances of Mr. Ben Bekhiche Hamid, an Algerian on his 32nd day of hunger strike? He is currently locked up in a single cell in the hospital wing of Rochester prison. The care that he receives there amounts to an orderly occasionally coming along and peering through


his cell grille. Why do the Government not give Mr. Hamid temporary admission to a hospital or transfer him to Medway hospital for proper medical treatment?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office made a general statement on the matter last week. I cannot add to what she said, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to her attention.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate next week on early-day motion 458?
[That this House notes that, as a consequence of industrial action in Greece, British lorry drivers were detained at Patras, Greece; observes that a number of horses were held for eight days in lorries where their condition was pitiful; commends the work of the Horse Reserve Fund in offering prompt assistance and in ascertaining whether the horses had been watered; and deplores the fact that the horses then had to undergo further journeys of up to 1,500 miles prior to their slaughter.]
The motion is signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and draws attention to the terrible treatment of horses in Greece. They were kept without food and water for eight days during the recent strike and then taken a further 1,500 miles before slaughter. We must protest against such practices in the European Union. May we have a debate through which to do that?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows very well that the British Government have consistently taken the lead in pressing for improvements in animal welfare throughout Europe. He has played a worthy part in ensuring that. In respect of his early-day motion, I should inform him that the International League for the Protection of Horses is to be commended for the prompt way in which it sought to help the Bulgarian horses recently detained in Greece during their journey to Italy.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Secretary of State for Health plans to release the current hospital waiting list figures that were expected this week? The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that on 16 July, the Secretary of State for Health held up the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals trust as an example of how waiting lists could be reduced to below 12 months in accordance with the patients charter. It is now quite clear that the hospital waiting lists declared by that trust have been doctored. Patients have not been declared within certain specialities, depending on where they live. Can the Leader of the House ensure that when the hospital waiting list figures are finally produced, they are accurate and have not been doctored under the direction and requirement of regional executives across the country?

Mr. Newton: As to the latter point, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will examine the allegations, as they must be described, which the hon. Lady has made. She asked about timing. I am not in a position to give an exact date, but I do not think that it is very far ahead.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about a debate on the West Lothian

question. Will he consider having a debate in Government time on the English question, which is why my constituents should entertain the prospect of paying more tax to support a separate Parliament, while Members of that other Parliament from the other area—Scotland or Wales—could come to London and vote on matters involving my constituents, who would have no say whatever in what happened under their aegis? Will my right hon. Friend consider that seriously and give us some time to discuss the English question, not the West Lothian question?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend asked an ingenious variation of what has long been known as the West Lothian question, which as I have said before, ought now to be known as the Linlithgow question. I entirely share his view of the importance of those matters and I have said several times that I am bearing in mind sympathetically the request for a debate.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: May I return the Leader of the House to the subject of London Underground? While I understand that he might not want to be bounced by what we read in the press, is he prepared to be bounced by a statement that has already been drafted on the privatisation of London Underground, which begins, "I can announce today that the Government have decided to privatise London Underground"? Does he accept that if such a statement is already drafted and ready to be made, the Minister should make that statement to the House, if that is the Government's intention? If it is not the Government's intention, should not the Minister tell the House why they have changed their policy? Finally, may I remind the Leader of the House that the statement ends, "The Minister expects tube users and Londoners in general to welcome such a proposal"? If we have such a debate, we in the Opposition will explain to him clearly why tube users and Londoners do not welcome that proposal.

Mr. Newton: I gave a reasonably clear answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) earlier in these exchanges and I cannot add to it. I am quite sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in a position to make proposals, he will set out clearly the advantages to Londoners and all tube users.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate to celebrate the overwhelming success of the private pension fund industry, which contrasts so well with the shambles in France and Germany? In such a debate, we could point out the implications for pensioners of the idiotic proposals for a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as so many of the privatised utilities' shareholders are, of course, pension funds.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, once again, makes a very good point. Not only do we not know on whom the windfall tax would fall or at what level it would be levied, but we certainly have not heard about its inevitable difficulties, disadvantages and potential losses for either consumers or shareholders, including, as he says, the interests of many pensioners.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Leader of the House agree that we should find time to debate the


astronomical increase in the death rate in England and Wales during the week ending 10 January? Can he confirm Government statistics that the death rate in that week was 19,500—5,500 above the average over the past few years for the second week in January, and 8,500 above the annual average? Does he therefore agree that it is urgent that we should debate what contributed to that death rate—whether it was a combination of a particularly virulent strain of influenza going around the country and hypothermia during the very cold spell, or our hospitals' catastrophic inability to cope with the winter medical emergencies that they faced?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman implied that—unhappily—there are, of course, variations in such a statistic, which depend very much on the level of an epidemic, if such there be, and, indeed, the weather. I shall not attempt to go into that in detail. Although I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I should make the point that we had a debate on health matters only yesterday.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for a debate on the importance of stability in the finance of education institutions? During that debate, we could stress the anxieties of well over 1,000 of our grant-maintained school that they run the risk of finding that the parents' decision that the schools become grant-maintained will be overruled, resulting in up to 15 per cent. of their education funds being taken away from them and their classrooms, to be spent by bureaucrats in local education authorities.

Mr. Newton: After my hon. Friend's success in achieving a debate on Kentish matters yesterday, I had harboured the hope that he might take today off. But he has not, and has made another very good point.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is there not a compelling case for an early debate on the operation of the law on data protection? Many of my constituents have contacted me, who are absolutely outraged at the invasion of their privacy, having received a letter from the Prime Minister. I should like the Leader of the House to comment on the letter from his colleague, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the chairman of the Conservative party, to my good friend and old colleague Harry Lees, who died 18 months ago. The letter, sent to the former Labour councillor and lifelong Labour party member, said that he could be an essential part of the Conservative election machine. Is not the law on data protection simply not working, given that people can receive such unsolicited letters from leading lights in the Conservative party?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, if the letter to a person who is deceased caused any distress, I am sure that all involved would very much regret it. I do not want to seem flippant over that matter. However, on the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said, it is not so long ago—although I do not think that I still have it—that I received a letter from the Labour party seeking my support in very similar terms.

Mr. Peter Luff: May I add my voice to the general chorus of calls for a debate on the constitution,

perhaps concentrating on a still more specific subject than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith): not the English question, but the Worcestershire question? Does my right hon. Friend understand that such a debate would enable me to explain the double constitutional whammy implied for Worcestershire in some of the plans floated for constitutional change: it would be dragged reluctantly into a regional assembly and dominated by Birmingham, while at the same time Scottish Members would be able to exercise a privilege that English Members did not have, and destroy our grant-maintained schools and fundholding practices?

Mr. Newton: The ingenuity with which my hon. Friends manage to make their points, disguised as requests for a debate, never ceases to amaze me. I congratulate my hon. Friend and will bear in mind his request as well.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Leader of the House respond to a request already made, to make time available to discuss the crisis of funding in further education? Surely it cannot be acceptable that Education Ministers have written to vice-principals, colleges are at risk of bankruptcy—some look set to lose £1 million—yet hon. Members have had no chance to debate the matter.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I return to the subject of the Police Bill [Lords]? Since last weekend, the Home Secretary has received a letter from his eminence Cardinal Basil Hume about the implications of that Bill for confession and the other pastoral counselling carried out by ministers of all denominations. Would it be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet Church leaders before Second Reading to hear about their concerns, and for him to announce on Second Reading that the meetings that pastors have with their flock will be explicitly exempted from the police powers to bug confidential conversations?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raised that matter last week, and I said then that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would consider the representations. I cannot add to that at this stage. As for the meeting that the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am not sure whether he is extending an invitation or whether an invitation has gone out from those concerned. I am sure that if one has, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter carefully.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate specifically about children's health, including the dental health of children in the north-west? Bolton's children now have the worst teeth in the country, with twice the national average amount of decay. Should we not debate the need to improve children's health?

Mr. Newton: We debated such matters yesterday, on a motion tabled by the hon. Gentleman's party. I am not sure whether he managed to get into the debate, but if he did not, I assume that what he has just said is an expression of frustration.

Points of Order

Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today I received a letter from the Prime Minister. I believe that that was because I hold one share in Yorkshire Water. He got both my name and the appropriate address wrong. Do you, Madam Speaker, think it appropriate for the Prime Minister to use his position to obtain the names and addresses of millions of people for a piece of cheap political propaganda? I am assured that Yorkshire Water did not offer the Prime Minister a list of shareholders. Do you not feel that such actions rather cheapen the position both of the Prime Minister and of the House of Commons?

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: No, no.

Mr. Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, no. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) seldom raises a point of order, and it is quite a sensible one, in connection with data protection. I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that it is not a matter for me what individual Members, including the Prime Minister, do. That does not relate to the Chair.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it a separate point of order? Is it a sensible point of order? [Laughter.] That is the point. Is it sensible as well as separate?

Mr. Shaw: I must, as always, Madam Speaker, leave you to judge that point. As you know, I always respect your judgment on such matters.
I want to draw attention to the fact that, although a particular matter has been raised in connection with the Prime Minister, it is more important to raise the fact that the Leader of the Opposition frequently writes to many people all over the country. We are concerned about whether he uses House of Commons resources for writing those letters to people—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He now seems to be generalising. It is matter of quid pro quo. Nobody writes to me, and I am very pleased that they do not.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Select Committee on European Legislation deals with hundreds of documents, and part of its procedures is to determine whether European documents, directives and regulations have legal or political significance. If they have such significance, the Committee may recommend that they be debated either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Should that not also apply to the pay review body documents, so that we can determine whether they have legal or political significance? If they do, the Prime Minister should surely make a statement so that we can question him on the seven documents.

Madam Speaker: I think that that is a point of view rather than a point of order.
Let me correct something that I said earlier. I said that nobody ever writes to me, but I do not want that to be misunderstood. Hundreds and hundreds of people write to me—mostly about points of order and noise in this House, which is not appreciated by the audience outside.

Royal Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Madam Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity to open this afternoon's debate on the Royal Air Force.
It would be inappropriate to open a debate on the RAF without taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the remarkable life and work of Sir Frank Whittle. Throughout his distinguished career in the Royal Air Force and subsequently, Sir Frank's vision and originality were an inspiring example to the service and to the aerospace world. Sir Frank was without doubt one of the giants of aviation. He will be particularly remembered for his invention of the jet engine, which he patented in 1930 when a flying officer of only 23 years of age. It was fitting that the memorial service to honour his life in November was marked by an RAF fly-past of four Tornados from No. 111 squadron, in which Sir Frank served in the 1920s.
On Tuesday, the Government announced that the permanent site for the joint services staff college was to be at Shrivenham. I mention that in this debate because of the importance of staff training to all three services, and especially to the RAF. This decision has rightly been warmly welcomed by all three services. The college will be a centre of military excellence, building on the world renown of its prestigious predecessors to maintain our global reputation for command and staff training.
The Shrivenham site will be ideal for our purposes, and it reflects well on the Government's private finance initiative that such an innovative solution has been put forward. There is, of course, regret at the closure of the existing colleges at Greenwich, Camberley and Bracknell, but I believe that its establishment on a green-field site will allow the new college to develop its own distinctive character and ethos.
Until the permanent college is ready for operation in September 1999, the joint services staff college will operate at interim sites—mainly Bracknell for all three services, where the college came into being on 1 January this year and where the first new course will start in September 1997. Although the facilities there will be temporary, they will be fit for the purpose. Significant efforts are currently being focused on providing the necessary accommodation and the syllabuses are being worked out to reflect the new joint training course.
The House may care to note the strong support that the Government have received from, among others, John Keegan—possibly the most distinguished of our defence commentators. Not known for mincing his words when he thinks we are doing the wrong thing, he has picked out some of the most crucial characteristics of both the JSSC as a concept and the Shrivenham solution. We believe that he is right and that it will transform the concept of general staff training. We believe that it will promise very high standards, much greater tri-service integration and an imaginative and highly relevant syllabus. I can do no better than describe our vision for the new JSSC and its permanent home as, in John Keegan's words, "a sensation."
It is men such as Frank Whittle who have shaped the Royal Air Force into what it is today: a dynamic, thoroughly professional, forward looking, innovative service, capable of projecting air power around the globe. Before turning to the RAF's achievements since our last debate, I would like to say a few words about military power from the air—known to some as air power.
All three of our armed services possess a significant capability to conduct air power operations. Before I go on to talk about that, I should like to remind the House that, as Churchill said,
Air power is the most difficult of all forms of military force to measure, or even to express in precise terms".
That was true in 1940, and remains so today; it is a reflection of air power's myriad roles.
I should like to mention three aspects that I consider important. The first, and perhaps the most obvious, is the ability, through control of the air, to conduct military operations free from attack by enemy air forces. From D-day to the Gulf, mastery of the air has been a key factor in the success of our armed forces in achieving their objectives, and one that no military planner can afford to ignore.
The second aspect of air power that I should like to touch on is the unique ability to project enormous destructive power swiftly, smashing an enemy's war-fighting capability. Modern air power embodies one of the most potent instruments of military force, capable of exacting unacceptable levels of punishment upon those unfortunate, or unwise, enough to have to experience its consequences.
We need look no further for a graphic example of those qualities than the war in the Gulf. Indeed, on this day six years ago, Royal Air Force Tornados and Buccaneers were engaged on operations as part of the great coalition over Iraq, attacking highway bridges on the Iraqi supply routes to Kuwait using laser-guided bombs. Meanwhile, other Tornado formations attacked airfields, training camps and power plants. Our Jaguars simultaneously sought out and attacked artillery positions. The effect on Saddam Hussein's war-fighting capability, in terms of matériel, communications and, crucially, morale, was totally devastating.
The precision and strength of air power find expression in the new strategic setting in which we exist today through the deterrence of aggressors and the enforcement of United Nations authority. It was air power, through the delivery of limited, precisely targeted force, that helped to bring the warring factions in the former Yugoslavia to the negotiating table in Dayton.
This day in 1933, Squadron Leader Gayford and Flight Lieutenant Nicholetts left RAF Cranwell in a long-range Fairy Aviation monoplane and flew non-stop to Walvis Bay, South West Africa. In so doing, they flew 5,431 miles in 57 hours and 25 minutes, establishing the world distance record. That then fantastic feat illustrates a third key aspect of air power: its reach.
Today, we exploit that capability in our support to peacekeeping, disaster relief, and humanitarian and military operations. The RAF has been to the fore in every recent military operation with which the United Kingdom has been associated. Its speed of deployment, reach and inherent flexibility make it ideally suited to react to the very broadest range of contingencies. In the fast-moving


post-cold war world, the ability rapidly to deploy is essential if we are to remain a significant player on the world stage.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Minister has been arguing about the efficacy of air power, which none of us would dispute. Why were the Government so reluctant to use this very impressive weapon in the Bosnian situation? Why were they so reluctant, when others were urging such actions upon us?

Mr. Soames: I saw the hon. Gentleman pregnant with question, and wondered when he would be delivered. It is a difficult question to answer. We were part of a United Nations operation that subsequently became a NATO operation, and there was a profound disagreement between the partners. With the sensitivity of its being a United Nations operation—a peacekeeping operation—the use of air power and bombs would have turned it over what was called the Mogadishu line, from peacekeeping to war fighting. It is a tribute to the timing of the decision that the operation passed off highly successfully and achieved precisely the stated objectives with the very precise, limited use of air power.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I follow the Minister's argument and support it strongly. Does he agree that a crucial element is surveillance and targeting capability, and that the ASTOR airborne stand-off radar programme will be instrumental in providing that for the Royal Air Force? Does he believe that the time limits set by the Department—I understand that a technical assessment was meant to be completed by the end of January—have been met and that the contract can be awarded by October? It is important to the RAF and is a priority to the Department, but it is also very important for jobs in Belfast and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman knows that we employ skilled and brilliant engineers to deal with the matter. Their man will be answering such questions later this evening. I am afraid that I cannot help.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the RAF's success also depends on the skills of the men in the cockpit, and that pilot training is of the utmost importance? Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of RAF Linton-on-Ouse in my constituency, which, sadly, will be in a neighbouring constituency after the general election? Can he give an update on progress on the replacement for the Bulldog aircraft for the university air squadron? Does he agree that the deployment of the Firefly aircraft in elementary flight training has already proved successful? Would not it make sense for the same aircraft to be used for all elementary training?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend was good enough to warn me that he might bowl that ball at me. I am happy to confirm the importance of flying training. If it were not for flying training and the pilots—quite apart from the support services—nothing would happen. I pay warm tribute to the maintenance of the extraordinary quality of flying training, which is regarded all over the world as the

best. I hope that he will allow me to write to him in detail about the new aeroplane. I am aware of his great interest, but the situation is one of shifting sands.

Mr. Michael Stephen: On aircrew training, my hon. Friend knows that Thomson Training and Simulation employs many people in Sussex, including some of my constituents. He also knows that it can provide aircrew training facilities for the RAF's new EH101 and Chinook helicopters. Is he aware that if the contract was awarded to Thomson in Britain, it would create 200 British jobs and provide a firm base for the export by Britain of high technology?

Mr. Soames: I am aware of the contract. Thomson is a company in my constituency, so I must be cautious. My hon. Friend will know what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will be able to deal with the matter more dispassionately than I later this evening. The House will realise that I am well informed on procurement matters and always ready to engage in combat on such difficult questions. It is dark and lonely work, but someone has to do it.
Since I last addressed the House in such a debate, I have visited men and women of the RAF deployed to a number of overseas locations. In October, I visited the Operation Jural detachment at its new home at Prince Sultan air base 80 miles south of Riyadh to see the exceptional work of the RAF in monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolution 688. I was very impressed by what I saw, and the House should know that the Royal Air Force has conducted itself there, in difficult and adverse circumstances, in a thoroughly cheerful and professional way. It moved from a well-established base to a bare one the size of the Isle of Wight in the middle of the desert. The move was done well, without missing an hour's operational flying.
I also visited RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, two of our largest bases in the United Kingdom, which Her Majesty's Government make available to the United States' visiting forces. I hope that the House will agree that it is appropriate, on the 50th anniversary of the United States Air Force, that I should pay tribute to the men and women of the United States Third Air Force based in this country. The United Kingdom has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States Air Force throughout its 50 years.
I now turn to current RAF operations. The RAF continues to provide constant and vital support to our operations and commitments throughout the world. It has been supporting peacekeeping operations in former Yugoslavia since the international community first became involved in the region. It played a vital role in the success of the IFOR operation and continues to provide full support to SFOR. Since 20 December last year, the RAF has flown in excess of 1,050 hours on a wide range of tasks in support of those operations.
The support helicopter force flies daily from bases in Bosnia and Croatia in support of our ground forces. The RAF transport fleet continues to make regular flights between the United Kingdom, Germany and theatre, maintaining vital lines of communication with our troops.
Two sentry aircraft, a Tristar and a Hercules, are based in Italy, providing, respectively, a surveillance capability, air-to-air refuelling and tactical transport. I wish to put on


record our extreme gratitude to the Italian Government for giving us such excellent assistance, which permits our forces to operate from their bases much more easily. It is a reminder of the overarching importance of the friendships rooted in NATO.
This week, six Harriers from 3 Squadron, RAF Laarbruch, based at Gioia del Colle in Italy, are handing over to six Jaguar aircraft from 41 Squadron, RAF Coltishall. They will continue to provide offensive air support to SFOR and I have no doubt that they will provide admirable support to our troops on the ground in Bosnia.
As the House will be aware, the RAF has been operating very publicly in the skies over the middle east. The United Nations adopted Security Council Resolution 688 to stop Iraqi repression of its civilian population. Along with our coalition partners, we established no-fly zones over Iraq to monitor Saddam Hussein's compliance with that resolution. RAF Tornado GR1s based in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, supported by VC10 tanker aircraft and some 400 personnel, continue to play a vital part in the no-fly zone operations over northern and southern Iraq.
Our objective remains peace and stability in the region and the well-being of its people. Our participation in those operations have played a notable part in achieving that objective. I take this opportunity to update the House on recent developments relating to the northern no-fly zone. Aircraft patrolling the northern no-fly zone are based at Incirlik in Turkey by agreement with the Turkish Government. Coalition partners reviewed the operation last December against the background of changes caused by Iraq's attack on Irbil in September. It was agreed that air operations over northern Iraq must continue. The French, however, decided to withdraw from the operation on 26 December, but that does not affect the coalition's ability to patrol the no-fly zone and its tasks are now undertaken by the RAF. It was also decided that the operation should be renamed Northern Watch. Like Operation Provide Comfort before it, we believe that Operation Northern Watch continues to perform an essential purpose in deterring Iraqi repression and that it must continue. French participation in no-fly zone operations over southern Iraq continues.
Let me stress that we do not seek confrontation with Saddam Hussein. We believe that it is essential to maintain pressure on him to comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to do that, both in the Security Council and through the coalition.
Hon. Members have been kept well informed of the Government's efforts to respond to the plight of Rwandan refugees in eastern Zaire. My right hon. Friend dispatched a joint service reconnaissance party to the region by an RAF VC10 on 15 November last year and, five days later, an RAF Canberra PR9 photographic-reconnaissance aircraft from 39 Squadron was dispatched. In addition, some 40 support personnel were flown out by three Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham. The photographic material obtained from the deployment was vital in demonstrating that the number and movement of refugees was not as great as anticipated and, on the basis of that information, the dispatch of a multinational force was judged not to be appropriate.
The RAF personnel involved in the deployment—among them air crew, engineers, a photographic processing and interpretation team, members of the RAF

police and a medic—are to be commended for conducting a demanding task in extremely exacting and difficult circumstances.
The RAF also contributes to the maintenance of our garrisons overseas. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised during his recent visit to the Falklands, the security of the islands remains one of the highest priorities of UK defence policy. The RAF element of the garrison plays a major role in ensuring that continued security.
We therefore continue to maintain Tornado F3 fighter aircraft supported by VC10 tankers in an air defence role. C-130 Hercules aircraft patrol the seas around the Falklands and the latest variant of the Rapier surface-to-air missile system operated by the Royal Air Force Regiment provides additional protection to the Mount Pleasant airfield complex. The House will also wish to pay tribute to the sterling work of the bi-weekly Tristar, which provides a critical link back to the UK for both the garrison and the islanders. Chinook helicopters are used to move men and supplies around the island and Sea King search and rescue helicopters provide a 24-hour search service.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Now that the contract for maintaining the Tristar has gone to the United Arab Emirates, does the Minister still feel confident that the maintenance will be carried out as well as it was at Marshall's of Cambridge?

Mr. Soames: That is, if I may say so to a nice person, a singularly foolish question, because if we had not felt confident we would not have let the contract.
In Hong Kong, the RAF has continued to play an important role in demonstrating British sovereignty and supporting the Hong Kong civil authorities. For example, 28 Squadron has provided outstanding operation support for the Hong Kong garrison and, in particular, the anti-smuggling task force. The squadron has also supported the Hong Kong Government flying service in air-sea rescue and fire fighting and it will remain until shortly before the handing over of the territory at the end of June.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As my hon. Friend will know, British Aerospace operates in my constituency and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Samlesbury only last Friday. Is it not right that, in all the operations mentioned by the Minister, we have not only the best pilots, the best engineers and the best back-up teams, but the best equipment? Does he agree that part of that best equipment will be the European fighter aircraft? Does he also agree that, if the Labour party carried out the threat contained in its 1993 conference decision to cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, that could jeopardise the European fighter aircraft—either the whole project could be cancelled, or the number of aircraft could be reduced from 230 to a minimal number?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, who is an extraordinarily doughty supporter of British Aerospace and of his constituents' interests, is quite right. There has been no response to the points he raised—indeed, one has to assume that all those major contracts go into the melting pot and are up for grabs, with grave potential


consequences, not only for my hon. Friend's constituents, but for the Royal Air Force and the other fighting arms, whose security for the future is reflected in the orders that the Government place in summer.

Dr. John Reid: Lest he inadvertently mislead the nation as well as the House, let me tell the Minister that he is out of date. Last week, there was an immediate response to that question and I responded to it an hour ago on national television.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Did the Labour leaders know?

Dr. Reid: From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State is asking whether I speak with the authority of my right hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I assure him that a statement of that nature would not have been made without the full clearance of our Treasury spokesmen and our leader because Labour operates in a less chaotic way when making these decisions than do the Government.

Mr. Soames: All of us realise that the hon. Gentleman is a good man doing his best in a hopeless case and that was an unconvincing affirmation of a policy. As we all know, neither the shadow Chancellor nor the Leader of the Opposition have confirmed any of the contracts. All they and the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whose absence we regret today, have been able to say—we have it in black and white—is that there would be a defence review and that the consequences of that review would be extremely painful. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I know perfectly well what that means and we also know the grave danger that that would pose to the interests of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and to the services. It merely confirms what the people of Britain have always known: that, as on many other matters, one cannot trust the Labour party on defence.
I shall now move on to a more elegant subject.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
In addition to its operational duties, the RAF participates in a wide range of exercises with our allies throughout the globe. Within Europe, the RAF has participated in two major NATO operations since July. During September and October 1996, we exercised the RAF's capability to deploy at short notice in response to an emerging crisis by participating in Exercise Dynamic Mix. Tornado F3 and Nimrod aircraft deployed using VC10 air-to-air refuelling aircraft, supported by Hercules C130s, which carried the ground crews and support staff to Akinci air base in Turkey. The exercise involved elements of the Ace Mobile Force (Land) with United States, Turkish, Italian, Belgian, Canadian, German and Dutch air forces.
Also in September, this time in the United Kingdom, Exercise Brilliant Invader took place. US F15, F18 and C130 aircraft, with Dutch F16s, participated with RAF

Tornado GR1s, Harriers, Jaguars, Hawk, VC10, Tristar, Sea King and Harriers in a joint air defence and offensive air support training exercise. Participation in these exercises demonstrates in as realistic a way as we can our tangible support for the alliance. It affords invaluable practice in combined training, operating alongside air forces of other nations in often unfamiliar environments. That allows the RAF to practise the deployment, sustainment and recovery of our reaction forces declared to NATO.
I mentioned in June 1996 that the Franco-British air group had made excellent progress in improving the capabilities of our respective air forces to carry out combined operations. This process continues. In September 1996,16 RAF and 23 French Air Force aircraft participated in Exercise Volcano in eastern France. This was the first in a three-year programme under the auspices of the Franco-British air group. The second exercise is due to take place in June in the UK. This participation is a mark, not only of the great warmth of our bilateral relationship with France, but of our increasingly close working relationship in the defence field.
The RAF also participated in five major US exercises: four Red Flag exercises in Nevada from October to December and Cope Thunder, in Alaska, in July. Major exercises such as these provide the opportunity for UK aircrew and weapon systems to train side by side with US forces, using facilities not available on this side of the Atlantic.
Goose bay in Canada continues to provide fantastic flying training opportunities for our crews taking part in Exercise Western Vortex, with four deployments in the past six months.
In addition, our bilateral contacts with the countries of central and eastern Europe continue to expand through NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative and our own outreach programme. Last year, two Partnership for Peace exercises took place, Co-operative Chance in Hungary and Co-operative Bear in the United Kingdom. In addition, the UK/Polish bilateral exercise Uhlan Eagle was held in Poland, when 7th Armoured Brigade deployed, and involved elements of the support helicopter force. These were great successes, and they demonstrate the value of closer co-operation between NATO and the nations of the former Warsaw pact. We hope very much that the RAF will contribute to planned maritime and fast jet exercises later this year.
The Royal Air Force is also active in exercises outside Europe and NATO. Later this month, four RAF Harrier GR7s from No.1 (Fighter) Squadron, the world's oldest military flying unit, will embark on HMS Illustrious, off Muscat, to take part in operations with royal naval Sea Harriers of the Fleet Air Arm. That deployment will mark a significant increase in our nation's ability to project air power from the sea—a golden and vital asset for this country—and make a major contribution to joint operational capability, with the consequent substantial benefits for the joint rapid deployment force and the doctrines that are being developed.
We are also making a significant contribution to the five power defence arrangements Exercise Flying Fish off Malaysia in April—the first such joint air and maritime exercise. I am delighted to tell the House that the United Kingdom is providing the largest contribution to the exercise and our air element, many thousands of miles


from home, will include 12 Tornados, two VC10 tankers, two Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and a Sentry early warning aircraft. That will provide an excellent opportunity to train with our allies from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia, as well as emphasising our continued commitment to the Asia-Pacific region, even after the handover of Hong Kong in June.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you know, the Red Arrows have also been active in the region. They had an extraordinarily successful year, displaying in the far east and Australia at the beginning of 1996 and in Indonesia in the summer. I am sure that the House will agree that the Red Arrows represent a wonderful advertisement for the skill of the Royal Air Force and the excellence of the United Kingdom defence industries.
The RAF's responsibilities are of course, not restricted—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will be aware that the Red Arrows fly the Hawk aircraft. There have been recent reports of cracks in that aircraft. Can he say a little about that problem and the steps that have been taken to remedy it?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, in the course of routine servicing, a fault was detected. In the usual way, as these matters are, it was dealt with, and all others with aircraft of the same type and age were informed to check. That is standard procedure. The matter has been dealt with.
As I said, the obligations of the Royal Air Force are not restricted to overseas theatres. In Northern Ireland, the RAF continues to play an invaluable role in the support provided by all three services to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. About 1,100 RAF personnel are deployed in the Province, operating Chinook, Wessex and Puma helicopters, and an RAF field squadron continues to provide security at RAF Aldergrove. I believe that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the role that the RAF has played over the years in Northern Ireland, where the skill of the pilots and the devotion and hard work of the support crews have created an extraordinarily successful mixture in providing that support. The RAF's contribution of trooping and resupply is vital logistical support to the Army and is undertaken in difficult and demanding circumstances, as anyone who has had the privilege of seeing them do it will know.
Search and rescue helicopters continue to provide emergency assistance to military and civilians alike: in 1996, more than 1,200 people were rescued. Always on stand-by, a Sea King helicopter crew were called out on Christmas day to rescue an injured walker from the Cairngorm mountains. Indeed, the enthusiasm of the search and rescue crews shone through when the flight at RAF Valley was dispatched following reports of a walker overdue on Mount Snowdon. Although the walker was located quickly he declined to be assisted, explaining that, as a Buddhist, he was attempting in vain to find peace and solitude on the mountain. [Laughter.] Ridiculous. Appalling suggestion. Wing Commander Walker?
Since the end of the cold war there has been a significant reduction in the number of unidentified aircraft entering our air space, so quick reaction alert scrambles have been required much less frequently. Nevertheless, a constant alert is maintained, and I thought that the House

would like to know of an important development. In September, Flight Lieutenant Helen Gardiner of No. 43 Squadron, RAF Leuchars, became the first female crew member to complete a live quick reaction alert mission. With her navigator, Flight Lieutenant Martin Harris, she scrambled and intercepted a pair of Russian Air Force reconnaissance aircraft as they observed NATO shipping. The Russian aircraft were shadowed before they turned away to set a course for their home base.
Royal Air Force Hercules crews, with elements of the Royal Air Force Regiment, participated in an international air mobility competition in June and deserve full praise for winning the best international team, best Hercules wing and best airdrop wing awards.
In November, the Hercules crews of No. 47 Squadron received the Brackley memorial award from the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators. That award is presented annually to service or civilian personnel who have made an outstanding contribution to aviation, and it recognises the critical role that No. 47 Squadron played in the development of air tactics during the humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo.
It is of great regret to me, to the Air Force Board and to everyone who works in the services and the Ministry of Defence, that such extraordinary achievements of great merit are so rarely picked up by the media, whose interest is only to feed on more disagreeable matters.
I know that the House will have shared my grave concern about the spate of aircraft accidents during the early part of last year. In all, 11 RAF aircraft crashed, with two aircrew, tragically, killed. As the Minister who would be one of those responsible for sending our people into operational circumstances, I know, as does everyone else involved, the cardinal importance of flight safety both to operational capability and to morale, and I and my colleagues on the Air Force Board need to know if there is—as some have feverishly suggested—any systemic cause. It is vital to find out why each crash occurred and what can be done to prevent any recurrence. I know that the House knows that the RAF takes such matters very seriously indeed. So do my right hon. Friend, his ministerial colleagues and all the others concerned.
Each accident is investigated in the most minute and scrupulous detail to identify its cause, so that lessons can be learnt to ensure that, if at all possible, the same thing never happens again. The causes of those accidents have proved to be diverse. Inquiries have revealed no common or fundamental problem in the way in which operations are conducted or supported. Similar clusters of accidents have occurred in the past—most recently the six Tornados lost in the summer of 1994—but those have not revealed any new trend.
Many statistics will no doubt be bandied about from time to time by those who have an interest in stirring up trouble, as evidence that there is a sinister organisational weakness behind the crashes. However, although those groupings of accidents cause intense speculation, our perfect statistical analysis over the year, and the RAF's rolling, thorough and meticulous analysis over many years, show that the RAF's overall accident rate continues to decline over time. No one can be complacent, and no one is complacent. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to monitor the situation closely.
Although people do not, as a matter of course, join the RAF in search of a quiet, stable life, there is no doubt that 1996 began with a period of significant but inevitable upheaval. Such turbulence and uncertainty clearly and understandably had an impact on the morale of those who were affected. That is inevitable during a period of change, but the uncertainty has been replaced by renewed confidence in the future. During my visits to RAF units, I have been continually impressed by the morale and forward-looking enthusiasm of all whom I have met.
That must in part be due to the Government's major commitment to invest in the future of the RAF, as characterised in July by my right hon. Friend's widely welcomed announcement of the largest equipment orders that the RAF has ever seen.
The rationalisation and restructuring programme that followed in the wake of the "Front Line First" and "Competing for Quality" initiatives has brought with it many challenges, difficulties and changes, which we do not seek to underestimate or deny. One of the most painful aspects was the need to reduce the RAF's trained uniform strength.
Last year I very much regretted having to report to the House that 8,300 redundancies had been necessary over the past and current financial years, although I am glad to say that fewer than 1,000 had been compulsory. All but some 2,500 of the total have now left the service, and the vast majority of the remainder will leave before April this year.
Although there will inevitably continue to be changes to the structure and organisation of the RAF over the coming year, RAF personnel can and do look forward to a period of greater stability underpinned by a large and expanding equipment programme.
As my hon. Friend will tell the House in greater detail this evening, the orders for Casom, Brimstone and a replacement for the Nimrod, together with the Eurofighter, represent a clear and unambiguous message from the Government to all members of the service: we are committed to providing them with the necessary resources and the best available equipment required to do their job.
The onset of a period of stability and the prospect of an exciting and rewarding future is good news for everyone in the service. Let me make it quite clear that we value the professionalism and expertise of the men and women of the RAF which has always been, and will continue to be, committed to offering excellent, exciting, rewarding, satisfying career opportunities for all those at all levels in the service.
I would like to say something about the important role played by the RAF reserve forces, and in particular, Royal Air Force volunteer reserve members called out in support of operations, supporting their regular colleagues in the UK, the former Yugoslavia, Italy and Turkey. They continue to provide invaluable support in the provision of intelligence, photographic interpretation and meteorological forecasts.
Last year I announced the decision to form a Royal Auxiliary Air Force support helicopter squadron at RAF Benson. Progress since then has been most encouraging. Media coverage created great interest, and the recruitment

drive resulted in more than 1,300 applications being received. The squadron is now training to enable it to meet its operational role in supporting the RAF's helicopter support squadrons. The training is going well and an evaluation of the success of the concept will be made in May 1997.
I know of the importance that many hon. Members attach to the issue. I assure them that we greatly look forward to seeing the results of the evaluation, which may allow us to expand the concept to other roles.
It gives me great pleasure to report the success of the trials conducted on the Hercules aircraft and the Wessex helicopter to assess the feasibility of recruiting and training ex-regular volunteer reservist aircrew. Those trials provided valuable information in developing the concept of using reservists in a wider role.
The RAF intends to recruit 30 Hercules reservist aircrew and nine Puma reservist aircrew during 1997–98, and a further 15 Hercules aircrew and six Puma aircrew during 1998–99. Those volunteers will be employed as high-readiness reserves under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and will train and fly alongside regular RAF aircrew. The RAF also continues to examine the scope for increasing the use of reservist aircrew where feasible, including employment on other aircraft types. It is intended that reservist crews will undertake a limited training commitment of between 30 and 40 days a year and, following training, will fly Hercules and Puma aircraft on fully tasked missions alongside their regular colleagues. Those recruited will be former regular RAF aircrew, many of whom are currently employed by civil airlines. I hope that the House will welcome this exciting development.
The House will recall that, during the Third Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill on 20 May last year, I announced that the central staff post of director reserve forces and cadets would in future be filled by a reservist officer. I said then that the appointment would be subject to the availability of candidates of the right calibre.
I am delighted to inform the House that such an individual has been found. He is Brigadier Richard Holmes, at present Brigadier TA at land command headquarters in Salisbury.
Hon. Members will recall that I mentioned Brigadier Holmes during the debate last year. I touched on the excellent advice that we had received from him, as an example of the way in which the views of the reserves are heard in the Ministry of Defence.
Brigadier Holmes has been a member of the TA for more than 30 years. He is one of the many excellent people in the reserves and one of their most distinguished officers. I welcome him to his new post, and am confident that he will do an outstanding job on behalf of the reserve forces of all three services.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm what he has told me in writing: that Brigadier Holmes, whom we warmly welcome to that important role, could eventually be replaced by a Royal Auxiliary Air Force officer or an officer from the Royal Naval Reserve—in other words, that it is a tri-service reservist appointment?

Mr. Soames: I am entirely happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. Almost without exception, all central staff


jobs in the Ministry of Defence are now tri-service jobs. It would be inappropriate if that were not the case. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that yesterday I visited the Fleet Air Arm at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton, where I met a Royal Naval Reserve officer who is flying the Sea Harrier and who is a pilot on commercial aircraft. That works extremely well. We must ensure that those excellent men and women stay in the reserve forces and pull through, so that they continue to play a major role. There are those who undoubtedly have the ability to go on to hold the most senior ranks with great distinction.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend knows how much I and many others welcome this appointment, not only because of the quality of the individual, but because it will allow the reserve forces to have a strong voice at the centre, and that will be a recognition of the increased contribution that they make to the country's defence in every aspect of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has been a tremendous supporter of the reserve forces and I was grateful to him for his support throughout the passage of the Bill that led to the Reserve Forces Act 1996. As a former serving member of the Royal Air Force, he knows the contribution that the reserve forces can make, provided that they are properly equipped and trained and have a clear role. The appointment is an important signal to the reserve forces, and as I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), it is important to have such a man in that post. It will let the reserves see that they are truly valued and have a role to play, for example, in the one-army concept. They must have the most efficient and effective equipment for the roles that they will undertake. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that they have a voice at the centre of decision making and ensuring that they are properly equipped and funded for training days.
The Air Cadet Force has been the subject of a great deal of excited speculation over recent weeks and I know that the Royal Air Force greatly values that successful force. I visited the air cadets in Hay wards Heath about 10 days ago, and I was immensely impressed, not just by the spirit of the young people who were taking part, but by their excellent turnout, their good bearing and steadiness on parade and their definite determination to put into it as much as they get out of it. They are an enormous credit to their service and to our country, as are all those who voluntarily give of their time for such work. That voluntary youth organisation provides many young people with a vital, unique opportunity to develop a wide range of personal qualities and skills such as leadership, self-respect, team work, responsibility and good citizenship while promoting a practical interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the communications that we debated earlier in the context of the Territorial Army, the auxiliaries and the reserves apply to the volunteer officers and instructors in the Air Cadet Force? Does might right hon. Friend agree that they have to have a viable means of communicating their views, and can he assure the House that that is part of what is being studied?

Mr. Soames: There has never been any problem about the cadets or the reserves communicating their views to

the Ministry of Defence. There has always been a responsive chain of command and it has always represented with clarity and boldness the views of cadets and reserve forces at the centre of the Ministry's deliberations. The problem is not so much that their views are not heard: it is about priorities. The cadet forces do a great deal of good for the young people who are involved in them, and they contribute greatly to the life of the country. In addition, it is pro bono work and what flows from it is good for the country as a whole. Their remarkable skills are developed through participation in a wide range of activities, including adventure training and training in community skills such as first aid, many of which lead to nationally recognised qualifications. The first-aid classes that I saw at Haywards Heath were outstanding. The young people who were engaged in them will be well equipped to deal with anything that may fall into their laps.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made plain, the Government strongly wish to encourage membership of the cadet forces. We hope that more young people will take the opportunity to participate in such worthwhile activities and we shall strongly encourage that. I do not mean to finish my speech in a disagreeable way, but I will. It is my unfortunate duty to draw to the attention of the House and, I hope, a wider audience the gross inconsistencies in what Labour has been saying about defence. It is plain that Labour is committed to a defence review. I am not surprised that the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman on defence is not here.

Mr. John Spellar: I had intended to open my speech by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow spokesman on defence, greatly regrets that he cannot be here because he has a serious bout of flu. I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister would not have raised the matter as he did if he had been aware of that.

Mr. Soames: I most certainly would. It is an extraordinary excuse to say that he cannot be here because he has flu. It is absolutely ridiculous. Time after time, my right hon. and hon. Friends come here reeking with flu, falling down with it, and take their places. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can be Secretary of State for Defence and not turn up because he has flu, he really has problems. The hon. Gentleman did not dare show his face, flu or no flu. [Interruption.] Opposition Members chunter away, but they know perfectly well that that is an unacceptable excuse. Anyway, I was not told beforehand.
Labour is committed to a defence review, and the only possible reason for that is to find ways to cut the defence budget. In a careful and well reasoned article last week, The Economist got it right when it stated that the result of a Labour defence review would be a smaller defence budget and perhaps withdrawal of the British Army from Germany. That is a significant statement, and the House and the nation need to take it on board. People want to know where the cuts will be made. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence asked for assurances that a list of defence equipment projects that we have announced and to which we are committed would be exempt from Labour's review. In a fairy tale response in The Daily Telegraph of attractive, gilded rhetoric without substance, the Leader of the Opposition gave no assurance that the equipment orders would be safe from Labour's defence review.
Many of us read with utter disbelief that article by the Leader of the Opposition, a former fully paid-up member of CND. It was almost incredible and while Labour postures and poses with its completely unreal defence policy, it mocks the whole ethos of the armed forces with its left-wing obsessions which we know would come to the fore in the unlikely event of Labour ever being elected. Labour will never be able to understand that the armed forces need to be different. The speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) a few days ago was a fraud and a sham because, as it stands, Labour's defence policy consists of a succession of formulae that are designed to enable people who profoundly disagree to persuade themselves that they are in total agreement. It will not wash and the country will not buy it because ordinary people know, as Conservatives know, that Labour old or new does not care about defence.

Mr. Spellar: That is rubbish.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish, but it is true because to Labour, defence is not a priority. Half the members of the Labour party are members of CND and are completely untrustworthy on defence. The concepts on which defence policy is made, and all the qualities that mark the services as being admirable, are wholly inimical to the politically correct nostrums and entirely contrary socialist left-wing beliefs. They are entirely alien to a socialist Labour party, old or new. Conservatives will never forget the spineless and craven folly of some current Opposition Members and their reckless and grotesque flirtation with CND and its fellow travellers. When it mattered, Labour bottled out and chucked in the sponge. If Labour had been in power in the 1980s, there would have been no cruise missiles and no Trident and there would have been serious consequences for our national security. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) may well squirm like a wounded squirrel. The hon. Gentleman's trial by fire is temporarily over until I unleash my hon. Friends upon him, with a judicious use of air power by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans).
I am glad to report to the House that the Royal Air Force is in good heart. It has carried through the reconstruction necessary to take it to the next century. It is training hard and is very busy with operations intended to preserve international peace and security, provide humanitarian aid, and advance the United Kingdom's legitimate interests. It enjoys the great respect of its peers around the world—I would hazard a guess that the Royal Air Force is the benchmark by which all other air forces are judged. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will describe in his closing speech, under this Government, it has a re-equipment programme that will maintain its position in years to come. We look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Warley, West, to his shame, will say.

Mr. John Spellar: Mr. Deputy Speaker, unashamed and unabashed, I rise to respond to 50 minutes of uncharacteristically reasonable discourse from the Minister of State. I thought that I might have to cut out some of the more offensive parts of my speech,

but fortunately he indulged in five minutes of bogus outrage at the end of his speech. One would never suspect that, having claimed in its last election manifesto that the Labour party would cut defence spending by 27 per cent., the Conservatives went on to cut it by 31 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who is responsible for personnel matters, informs me that there as been a 38 per cent. reduction in Royal Air Force personnel. The Government spent £500 million in one year on redundancy payments in the forces and another £100 million on recruitment. They still cannot get their figures right, and the service is 5,000 troops under strength. Perhaps the Minister's bogus outrage is good cover, good camouflage and good deception tactics in an attempt to divert attention from the Government's shameful record.
In the more presentable part of his speech, the Minister correctly paid tribute on behalf of the House to the professionalism, dedication and effectiveness of the Royal Air Force. We join him in recognising its contribution to the security of our nation and to peace around the globe. We also join him in paying warm tribute to Sir Frank Whittle, whose career demonstrates the importance of innovation in engineering to the operation of a successful Air Force. I am pleased to see the Minister wearing his demob suit today, in a further tribute to Sir Frank.
In opening for the Opposition in last year's RAF debate on 6 June, I mentioned that it was the third and last of the services debates in that Session. Surprisingly, the batting order has been changed this year. We understand why the Government could not hold the Navy debate, after the comments by the Secretary of State for Defence about the royal yacht and the embarrassment that he caused the Government. We understand also why the Government could not hold the Army debate, because of the shortfall in troops that is particularly serious in that service.
However, that does not explain why this debate was rushed forward—especially since the annual RAF briefing for hon. Members from both Houses is scheduled to take place next Monday. Were Ministers concerned that the RAF would raise questions that they would find difficult to answer? As a result of this early debate, many of the issues that we raised last year remain pertinent and this debate may repeat several elements of the last one.
In some cases, events have moved on. Last July, through all-party pressure—I pay tribute to the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House—we managed to force announcements on Nimrod and the missile contracts. However, it was a close-run thing, involving a last-minute debate—which did not turn out exactly as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had anticipated—a comprehensive clobbering of the hapless hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and a flustered eleventh hour appearance by the Leader of the House. The announcements nearly did not happen, and their handling suggests that Ministers have little comprehension of the cost to industry of unnecessary contract delays or the resulting damage to export prospects.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for giving way. While he is on the subject of damage to industry and the impact of new equipment on the RAF, will he give the House an absolutely straight answer tonight? Would a Labour Government include the future


of Eurofighter in their defence review? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that a Labour Government would not cancel Eurofighter—yes or no?

Mr. Spellar: I shall turn to Eurofighter in a moment. Does the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) believe that he is doing the Eurofighter cause any good by raising that question in Session after Session when Conservative Back Benchers have received comprehensive answers about it? He must understand that there are on-going debates in Germany, that fine decisions are being taken there, that difficulties are being faced, and that we may get a decision in March. In the light of those developments, does he think that it is helpful to try to generate confusion and uncertainty in the minds of our partners overseas?
It is now clear that this debate has been rushed forward for party political reasons. The hon. Gentleman is undermining the Eurofighter project and the national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North responded to the Minister, who chose not to believe him—that is his right. My hon. Friend made clear our position on Eurofighter, and I shall clarify it further later. The hon. Gentleman must understand that he is not doing the industry any favours—unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber to hear the earlier exchange—by playing political games with the issue.

Mr. Mans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must send the right messages to the Germans about the future of that important European project at this critical time. The Secretary of State for Defence has said that we wish to proceed to the production investment phase. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he could send a clear message to the Germans tonight by confirming that the Labour party would exclude Eurofighter from its defence review?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman must accept that that issue was raised in the last two rounds of defence questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and I responded to it. We agree that Eurofighter is vital if we are to meet the future requirements of our armed forces. That is why Labour has consistently backed the project, and why we recognise its importance for the future of our defence and our security needs in the 21st century. It is irresponsible for Conservative Members to try to create uncertainties in the electorate by attempting to undermine our position.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman will know that the project is vital to my constituents who are involved in the production of European fighter aircraft. Will he assure them that those aircraft would not be part of any future Labour Government review, and that the 230 aircraft that have been ordered would not be scaled down at any time under a Labour Government?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have reduced the number of aircraft from 250 to 232 Let me make it clear: we are committed to the programme as it stands currently. We will order Eurofighter, provided that there is continuing agreement

about work share and financial arrangements which are acceptable to the British Government and to British industry.

Lady Olga Maitland: This is a fudge.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady must recognise that negotiations are currently proceeding with the German Government. That is the position of Ministers, and I have made clear the position of Her Majesty's Opposition who will take those decisions after the election.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): No, the position is not clear. Would the hon. Gentleman exclude Eurofighter from a defence review—yes or no?

Mr. Spellar: The Minister is setting up Aunt Sallies and then being frightened by them. As he is aware, the issue may well arise before the defence review is completed. The question is therefore whether we will order Eurofighter when the decision must be taken, and I have given our response to that question. The Minister, quite wrongly, is creating an issue. The consequences of the position adopted by him and by other Conservative Members will be to encourage those in Germany who want to undermine Eurofighter, and they are playing a very serious game. They are playing that game not only over Eurofighter but over defence exports and British companies.
Some Conservative Back Benchers—to be fair to them—are making sterling efforts to reassure other countries that the scare stories being put around by the more irresponsible elements of the Conservative party are untrue. Those stories are undermining the British national interest, and they are desperate ploys by desperate men.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his proposal for a review is causing instability in British industry? Does he not understand that?

Mr. Spellar: I do not, because it is not true. The matter is self-evidently a political ploy. We should now move on in this debate, because Conservative Members are obviously incapable of understanding our position, although I have expressed it in plain English. I have made our position on the Eurofighter clear in my statement, but that does not suit Conservative Members' party political purposes. It is a game played by those in a party which is so far behind in the opinion polls—[Interruption.] They are desperate to cling on to office, by their fingernails—[Interruption.] Those who work in the industry will fully understand their game.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been very tolerant, especially with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The Minister made a 55-minute speech and was given a reasonable hearing; the shadow Minister must be given the same.

Mr. Spellar: I had to go out of sequence to deal with that issue—which Conservative Members could not wait


to raise, so that they could make their party political broadcast. The excitement of following their central office brief was obviously too much to resist.
Last year, the Nimrod orders and missile contracts were a close-run matter, and created problems for industry. This year it has happened again, in the collapse of the Bowman competition—which was important in itself, but also to some of our leading defence contractors. It provides a case study in the limitations of the Government's narrow views of the procurement process. As consolidation inevitably occurs in the industry, that view will increasingly hamper British industry, until there is a change of philosophy. Given this Administration's stubborn resistance to change and Conservative Members' antics in the past few minutes, however, such change will occur only with a change of Government.
This debate also provides us with an opportunity to revisit the sale of the married quarters estate. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will tell us how much rent the Government anticipate they will pay for those properties this financial year, and how much they project will be paid in future years. Perhaps he will also tell us their estimates for movements in the cost of assured shorthold tenancies—an indicator that will set future rent levels—and the impact of those on defence expenditure.
After this week's press reports, will the Minister also tell us how much purchasers will make from the sale of surplus properties, so that we can assess—albeit retrospectively—whether it was a good deal for Britain and for our armed forces. Specifically, was it a good deal for the RAF, which generally had a much better standard of property? It might be instructive if, in his reply, the Minister tells us how much will be spent this year on additional upgrading of the estate, and how much will go to the RAF portion of the estate?
We have touched on the Eurofighter issue, but we should tie it in with the safety issue, which the Minister mentioned earlier in his speech. As he is aware—he alluded to it in his speech—concern has already been expressed in earlier debates and in the Select Committee at the number of fast jet crashes, and at the consequent cost in aircraft and, tragically, in human life. On those occasions, hon. Members spoke of the need for an overall inquiry to assess whether there are systemic problems, rather than simply to continue examinations to determine the cause of individual crashes.
Concern over safety must have been increased by figures in an article published in this weekend's Scotland on Sunday, to which I have drawn the Minister's office's attention. The article compared the RAF with the United States air force, and showed that, in the period 1992–96, RAF serious accident rates per flying hour were 80 per cent. higher than the USAF's. I realise that such data must be handled and examined extremely carefully, and I fully accept the need to examine like for like, but I think that we owe it to our air crews and to our taxpayers to examine whether we are sufficiently up to date with modern risk management.
We all recognise the superb skills, professionalism and dedication of those who serve in the RAF, but we need to be assured that they are aware of the best possible

techniques and that they are not overstretched. That is especially true, as the Minister said, when we are dealing with the role of air power in power projection.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentlemen clarify exactly what he means about risk management? How does he think that current risk management should be altered, and what action does he think that he would take?

Mr. Spellar: That question demonstrates precisely why I say that the Minister should examine the subject and consider an inquiry into it. I am not a professional airman, any more than I am a professional engineer, and neither is the Minister. However, if the US air force believes that it has achieved its lower accident rate because of the scope of its risk management, surely we should examine its practice.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware that almost every air force in the world comes to the United Kingdom to train and to learn how we deal with accidents. Surely that indicates that we know what we are about?

Mr. Spellar: Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if we can find ways in which to improve our record, we should do it. The Minister should not merely, in a cavalier fashion, disregard the proposal, which has been made not only by Opposition Members but, after hearing evidence from the RAF, by the Defence Select Committee. It is worth examining.

Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) is quite right. People come from all over the world to learn how we deal with accidents—after they have happened. In the Select Committee, we discussed how to stop accidents happening.

Mr. Spellar: rose—

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spellar: Yes.

Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I should like to make one other point. One has to be careful about knocking copy from countries outside the United Kingdom, especially from the United States. I recall that when the Harrier, or AV8B, first went into service in the United States, there were many comments about a higher rate of crashes. The answer was quite simple: the aircraft was so popular with American pilots that they were flying it two and a half times more than they were flying their own aircraft.

Mr. Spellar: The figures that I quoted were to do with relative flying hours, and were therefore calculated on a ratio. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I said, we must be very careful with the data. We must examine the data and ensure that we are comparing like with like, but we should not disregard it. It has been obvious throughout the Minister's ministerial career that he is not interested in data or in evidence, whether it is on BSE or on matters with which he now deals. Evidence is not his strong point, although bluster and bravado certainly are.
The Minister, like the rest of us, will have seen press reports on the options for airborne heavy lift, and we all know that the Defence Select Committee is currently considering the entire matter of heavy lift. The Statement on the Defence Estimates states:
we continue to work with partner nations and industry to establish a satisfactory basis for the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Future Large Aircraft project.
Only last month, the Defence Secretary reaffirmed that
all three countries, including ourselves, have expressed great interest in the Future Large Aircraft.
We also understand that the current aim is to encourage Airbus to design and build a suitable military transport aircraft. Indeed, it is widely believed in the industry that the criteria set by the Secretary of State in December 1994 as preconditions for Britain entering the programme have largely been met by the Airbus industrial partners and Alenia.
Will the Minister explain the current thinking on the need for a British and European capability for strategic airlift compared with continuing dependence on the US air force? If not, how does he envisage procuring or leasing the aircraft, and what are the implications for the European aircraft industry and international sales?
While dealing with new projects, will the Minister comment on the ASTOR programme, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which, with the prospect of NATO-wide procurement, has considerable export implications? Will he tell us when he expects a decision, or at least an interim announcement, to be made on that programme?
We all recognise the importance of exports to our defence industry. The Opposition greatly welcome the recently announced success of our defence industry in cornering a quarter of the world's defence market last year. It is a tribute to the innovative capacity of the companies involved and the skills of their work force and, let us be frank, the involvement of the Defence Export Services Organisation—DESO—and, on a number of occasions, of Ministers.
The main concern is how much of that success depends on research and development work that was undertaken 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. We must be concerned about whether a similar programme is being carried out now and backed by the Government to ensure a similar pattern of success in years to come. We must also look to broaden our markets beyond the one very important customer, which is the key to so much of our export achievement. These are exports not only of equipment, which tends to make the headlines, but of many services.
As I visit defence plants around the country, sometimes stalked by the Secretary of State who turns up the week before, I hear endlessly about the difficulties of getting skilled and qualified workers. Those we have are recognised as world class but we must build on that strength, not dissipate it.
We must also realise how the lay-offs and redundancies of the last few years have scarred the work force. We recognise that across the world the aerospace industry and the forces have faced the problems of adjustment to the end of the cold war. However, those affected have to be sure that the people in charge have used their best endeavours to ease the pain. I am not sure that the work force or the management at Marshall's of Cambridge will feel very warmly about the circumstances in which they

lost the TriStar repair contract. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will, I hope, be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with the situation in more depth. In any event, I should like the Minister to say how much he is saving by the change. When did Gulf Air enter the competition? Who will bear the cost of flying the TriStars to the Gulf? What assessment has he made of the effect on surge capability? Suffice to say, we expect, and receive, long-term loyalty, commitment and service from our contractors. The Ministry of Defence should recognise that that needs to be reciprocated—loyalty is a two-way street.
While we are considering matters of confusion, will the Minister update the House on the transfer of air traffic control from West Drayton? How much did the MOD estimate that the transfer would cost, what was the actual potential cost, why was the contract not procured as a whole, and what adjustments will have to be made to military procedures to accommodate the move from West Drayton now that the original proposals cannot be implemented?
The Minister mentioned the Joint Service Command and Staff college at the beginning of his speech, and although his comments about Shrivenham may or may not be true, I was surprised that it took the MOD so long to come to its conclusion. If it is such an excellent and possibly even a self-evident conclusion, why did it take so long to reach it? Perhaps the Select Committee on Defence or the Public Accounts Committee would like to examine the catalogue of events.
In reply to a written question in March 1995, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that all the responses to the consultation process had
received the most careful and sympathetic scrutiny, and I have thoroughly reviewed the costings associated with our proposal"—

Dr. Reid: Was it Shrivenham?

Mr. Spellar: Contrary to what my hon. Friend may believe, it was not Shrivenham. He is anticipating my next point.
The Minister's response continued:
no significant arguments have emerged, nor have any new suggestions been made which have caused us to alter our original proposals. The costings continue to demonstrate that Camberley is the most cost effective option.
I can therefore confirm that we shall establish the Joint Service Command and Staff college at Camberley, and that we plan to open it and close the colleges at Bracknell and Greenwich in late 1997."—[Official Report, 30 March 1995; Vol. 257. c. 744.]
We now come to February 1996. In reply to a question from a Conservative Back Bencher—one therefore presumes that the Government wanted to give this information—the Minister said:
We intend to dispose of the Bracknell site by the end of 1999.
The work so far has shown that Camberley is the most cost-effective and appropriate Ministry of Defence site for the college."[Official Report, 6 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 169.]
By 12 February, however, there was a slight warning rattle for Camberley. In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Minister said:
the conclusion that Camberley is the most cost-effective and appropriate of the sites examined remains robust.


The word "robust" may enter the political annals as a warning sign, alongside the word "unassailable" when applied to Chancellors—or, since Tuesday, is it now "infallible"? A similar word I found in the defence estimates was the word "challenging" in the context of a completion date of Project Horizon—as in, "We always thought that the date 2002 was challenging." That word is another warning sign to which colleagues should be alert.
The Minister's same answer of 12 February continued:
We have examined Queen Elizabeth Park barracks at Guildford and the royal military academy Sandhurst as possible options for an interim site for the JSCSC as well as split site options, but work to date indicates that RAF Bracknell is likely to be the most appropriate and cost-effective temporary site."—[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 443.]
That answer was also rather instructive on how much it is all costing. I shall not bore hon. Members with the minor details, but the answer states that detailed work to develop JSCSC proposals at Camberley is costing £328,000. There is no mention of Shrivenham.
On 2 May 1996, the Minister said in reply to a written question that work remained on schedule for the new Joint Service Command and Staff college
to open at Bracknell in September 1997 and immediate next steps include formal planning consultation with the local authority."—[Official Report, 2 May 1996; Vol. 276, c. 579.]
It refers later to disposal plans.
Then, out of the blue, came an answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to the effect that the college will be at Shrivenham. If that is the case, why have we had all the arguments about Greenwich, Camberley and Bracknell and the suggestions, made by hon. Members who know the situation better than I, about a joint site at Bracknell and Camberley? How much have we spent on this whole fiasco?
It has been a saga of incompetence, although one would never have known it from the Minister's introduction to the debate. However, it is clear from the texts that I have read out that no one had a clue. It was clear when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was detailing various problems; it was clear during the debates on the Armed Forces Act 1996; and it is even clearer now. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate can give a better explanation for this sorry string of events.
We have mentioned some of the ploys that are surfacing in the hectic lead-in to the general election. Indeed, the Minister referred to the leak about a massive expansion of the cadet force. I hope that he can give a clearer account of the Government's intentions, but the way the issue has been dealt with is rather unfortunate. The general view in the House is that the cadet force performs a valuable role for the services and for society as a whole. Indeed, I thought that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces spoke movingly about that, but wild-eyed £1 billion schemes tend to detract from proposals for sensible expansion. I must say that some of the claimed merits of the cadet force that were trumpeted in the press seem slightly over-exaggerated to those of us who were in the CCF. It was good fun and good experience—

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands that the CCF is a tiny part of the cadet

organisation. The Air Training Corps, for example, has squadrons throughout the community which could be expanded without any of the difficulties that he and others may foresee.

Mr. Spellar: As I rightly indicated, we support a reasonable, sensible and steady expansion, but not the attempt to have a cadet force in every school. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise from his experience, the forces would not be able to handle such an expansion effectively, and nor would they wish to do so. We should not overdo the merits of the cadet forces, but we should recognise the contributions that the cadet forces can make, in their various manifestations, to forces intake and to society.
We should also recognise that the cadet force is not the only way in which young people, especially young men, can gain experience and make the transition into the adult world. Another route is the tradition of apprenticeships which has taken a battering from Government policies, especially in the MOD where so much work has been outsourced. No attempt has been made to maintain the level of apprenticeships or to guarantee the skills of the work force of the future. The result is a country with a shortage of skilled workers and an army of disaffected youth, but they will have their say soon.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the RAF's apprentice scheme was designed to produce apprentices who would become senior, high-quality non-commissioned officers later in their careers. The RAF is not cutting technical training. It is providing technical training for 17 and 18-year-olds and it is also providing leadership training as their careers develop. With that information, will the hon. Gentleman modify slightly his latter comments about trained personnel in the Air Force?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. I was talking about the outsourcing of work to other companies which did not have a requirement to maintain apprenticeships. In an apprenticeship, young people learn a skill that enables them to be useful, productive and earning members of society. In some cases, they also have an effective role model—for the first time—in the skilled person with whom they are working. They have to work as part of a team and develop the social skills and discipline that may have been lacking. Apprenticeships provide a framework for young people to mature and move into adulthood, and that should not be disregarded. The cadet force plays a useful role, but it is not the only way to ensure that our young people get the chance to become useful members of society.
The young people who have been disadvantaged and dispossessed by the Government will shortly have a chance to have their say, and I can say with assurance that this is the last RAF debate before the election. The new Government look forward to working with the RAF, the defence manufacturers and the work force to build on past achievements and to develop a working partnership for an even more successful future.

Mr. Michael Colvin: While the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) has been a defence spokesman, he has learned that attack is the best


form of defence. After the battering he got at the end of the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he was right to come out with his head down. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be a sinister reason for having our debate on the Royal Air Force today. I believe that we shall have our debate on the Army soon and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate all three services before the general election. The Defence Select Committee is undertaking three inquiries—on defence budget funding, on heavy lift and on defence medical services—all of which merit a debate in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Warley, West raised the issue of the tri-service staff college. The Liaison Committee is currently reviewing the powers and the role of our Select Committees and we have found that sometimes it is difficult—now that many departmental duties are conducted by agencies or, as in the case of the tri-service staff college, under the private finance initiative—to obtain the figures that would enable us to assess whether a decision is cost-effective. Sometimes the figures are described as commercially confidential and we cannot have them.
The role of Select Committees and their relationship with the Public Accounts Committee is also important. The Select Committees would become defunct if money issues were considered only by the Public Accounts Committee. That is not what was intended, but the Public Accounts Committee has existed for so long that it has adopted that role. The House would benefit if some of its duties were passed to the specific departmental Select Committees, because that would give us more power to scrutinise, for example, the cost-effectiveness of the tri-service staff college.

Mr. McWilliam: As a member of the Defence Select Committee, I know that the problem is not so much the way that the Select Committees were set up but the Armstrong doctrine, which was introduced to hamper Select Committees and which has no basis in any motion passed by the House.

Mr. Colvin: That is a useful conclusion to my remarks on the subject.
On a lighter note, I was intrigued by the throwaway description of Opposition Front Benchers as squirrels by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I wondered whether they were red squirrels or grey squirrels. As we know, the red squirrel is being driven out by the grey squirrel and that may be what is happening politically. Opposition Members are probably grey squirrels on the outside, but many are still red squirrels on the inside.
Nobody could deny that my hon. Friend the Minister brings a certain style to the Dispatch Box. I congratulate him on the deft and generous way in which he dealt with questions about defence procurement. It would be most uncharacteristic of him to shoot the fox of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and he avoided doing so on this occasion.
I endorse the tributes that have been paid by both sides of the House to the late Sir Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine, whose work hastened the end of the second world war. I recall driving up a road in Kent chased by a V1, which was itself being pursued by a jet fighter and, had it not been for the jet fighter, the doodlebug would

have got me. The ability of our jet fighters to match and exceed the speed of the V1 was an important factor when it was unleashed on the civilian population by Nazi Germany in the dying gasps of that regime.
Although barely eight months have passed since we debated the Royal Air Force, such debates are important in the run-up to a general election because our deliberations might have some influence on the contents of the parties' manifestos on the key subject of the defence of the realm—the first duty of every Government. I do not mean just the defence of the United Kingdom. This country has interests and investments all over the world. We are a bigger investor in the United States of America than are Japan or Germany and we have influence worldwide. It is important that our defence capabilities have the worldwide reach to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
We also have a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations and we were a founder member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. As a background to the debate, it is important to consider the future development of NATO. It could be said to have accomplished its mission—the ending of the cold war. It is undergoing dramatic restructuring and reorganisation. It has 65 headquarters scattered around the world. At the Madrid summit this summer, the important issue of the enlargement of NATO will be discussed.
Since 1989, all NATO member states have cut their armed forces and their defence budgets, both in money terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We have had the upheavals of "Options for Change" and "Front Line First" in this country. At the same time, the Ministry of Defence has preserved our ability to mount high-intensity warfare, which is what it is all about.
We cannot win battles without air supremacy. That is why this debate is important. It is logical for the first armed forces debate of the year to be on the Royal Air Force. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said about air supremacy in the Gulf war, in which its importance was displayed.
The collapse of communism and the totalitarian regimes of central and eastern Europe has brought chaos and uncertainty, as well as a certain amount of fear in most of those countries about what will happen in Russia. The Russian people are also frightened about what will happen in the west. They have been indoctrinated for years. They still regard us in the west as the enemy and do not trust us. The central and eastern European countries between the western NATO powers and Russia are in a precarious position.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the Baltic states—particularly Estonia and Latvia—and Ukraine, in all of which ethnic Russians amount to almost one third of the population. If any countries are vulnerable, it is they. We have already seen Belarus essentially reincorporated into the federation of Russian states. Most attention will now focus on what happens to Ukraine. I well understand the Russian desire for a special treaty with NATO. I am sure that that will be high on the agenda of the NATO heads of state at the Madrid summit.
There could also be a case for a special treaty of a different nature between NATO and Ukraine. Ukraine must never be seen by the Russians as a buffer between it and the western powers. It must be seen as a bridge between the two. The more we trade with the central and


eastern European countries, the more trust will be built up, the stronger their economies will become and the better they will be able to defend themselves and reassure their people that the changes resulting from perestroika and glasnost are worth while and not a danger. That is the background for our debate.
A great deal is made of the dangers of the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, but I am not convinced that it is such a great threat as people make out. There seems to be a crescent of crisis from Afghanistan to the western Sahara, but Islamic fundamentalism is probably more of a danger to the countries in which those regimes come to power than to their neighbours. Trouble between one country and another can be found, but fundamentalist countries do not seem to have a desire to invade Europe.
There is a danger in the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by such countries. The proliferation of those weapons from the former Soviet Union to the countries along the north African coast is of considerable concern, particularly if they are able to put chemical or biological warheads on them. A Scud missile fired from north Africa could reach the heart of most central European cities. That is one good reason why we must never relinquish our nuclear deterrent, which deters people from taking such pot shots at us.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend made a most important point about potential threats and referred to the crescent of crisis in the Islamic world. Is it not therefore particularly important that we pursue our studies into ballistic missile defence in depth, assiduously and with some urgency? A ballistic missile attack on Europe could be launched from that crescent of crisis—Iraq and the littoral and Mahgreb countries—if there were a decisive change to an aggressive form of dictatorship in any of those countries.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee has addressed that issue and made recommendations. The question is whether the European countries do the development work on anti-ballistic missile defence systems themselves or in concert with our American allies. I believe that transatlantic co-operation on this is a must because of the enormous costs and it is a good way to continue the development of the two-way street in the exchange of technology and manufacture between us and our most important allies, the United States of America.
Another factor to bear in mind in the current overall security situation is the re-election of an American president for a second term. Whatever one may think about President Clinton's politics, the fact is that American presidents in their second term become much more internationalist. They are less concerned with the domestic situation and re-election, because they cannot be elected for a third term. An American president in his second term goes all out to leave behind a record in the history books as an international statesman who did his bit to improve the condition of people worldwide.
President Clinton has already established the Partnership for Peace—a well-conceived proposal that gives countries that want to join NATO an opportunity to get a toe in the door. It has worked effectively and we

must pay credit to President Clinton for it. Over the next few years, the United States of America will become more internationalist in outlook and its president will take a more active role in international affairs.
Although the NATO countries will be debating enlargement this year, the enlargement of the European Union is equally important from a security point of view, not because we need a common policy on security, defence or foreign affairs, but simply because, the faster we enlarge, the less danger there is of European institutions becoming too deep—something that we do not want. Enlargement will also allow the economies of central and eastern European countries to develop faster, enabling them to defend themselves as they want.
In 1975, when we were debating the Common Market during the referendum campaign, I recall being told by a history master in a secondary school in Andover that the entire future of the Common Market boiled down to one point. He said, "When you trade, you have peace and when trade breaks down, you have war." That is why the speed with which we need to reform the common agricultural policy is so important. We cannot enlarge the European Union to the east until we have reformed the CAP. The faster that is done the better, because there is an important security component to the enlargement of the European Union. It is against that background that we debate the RAF today.
The report by the Select Committee on Defence on last summer's statement on the defence estimates contained the latest results of the Committee's inquiry into front-line forces. I shall outline the main points that we made in respect of the RAF.
In paragraph 43, we concluded that, last July, the RAF was just about meeting its commitments while going through a considerable period of change and that the "Options for Change" drawdown would cease to be an adequate explanation for uncertainty in the RAF after April 1997. We looked forward to the resumption of tests of operational effectiveness after 1 April 1997. We hoped that after that, the RAF would be able to benefit from a greater measure of stability before the introduction of the Eurofighter in 2001—it will now be 2002—and the withdrawal from Germany in 2002 brought new elements of change. That is now happening.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us when he replies to the debate whether the RAF will resume the TACEVAL—or tactical evaluation—tests of operational effectiveness in March. Moreover, with redundancies being completed by April, there should now be signs of stability and improved morale in the RAF.
In paragraph 51, we concluded that the fact that RAF aircraft were being used for operations was no excuse for the low rates of serviceability—that is what they are for. We said that the fact that average serviceability rates have declined must mean that the higher rates of serviceability for aircraft on operational deployment must be matched by significantly lower rates for aircraft based in Germany and the United Kingdom. We accepted that recent problems with the Tornado engines had affected serviceability, but we concluded that they did not account for the long-term decline. We thought that the experience should be recalled if the RAF ever again considered saving money by cutting spares or further reductions in uniformed manpower. We were also concerned about the number of aircraft losses in 1996—a subject that has been mentioned today.
The House will expect an assurance from my hon. Friend that fast jet serviceability has now improved after the problems with spares and the RB199 engine. I hope that the lesson has been learnt about the effect of cutting spending on spares.
In paragraph 73, we again recommended that the RAF published targets of turbulence that are relevant to the conditions of service and the frequency of absence from home. We referred to the effects on recruitment, morale and retention in the armed forces.
The Government's reply to the Select Committee's report eventually contained published measures of turbulence: personnel should not have to spend more than 140 days away from the home station per year, aggregated over two years. The Committee welcomed the publication of that standard. At first sight, it does not appear too rigorous: there cannot be many RAF personnel who spend more than 20 weeks a year away from their home bases. The Committee will be asking for details of compliance with that new standard.
Only yesterday, the Committee visited one of the smallest, newest and most innovative RAF units—the military district hospital unit at Peterborough—as part of our inquiry into defence medical services. I hope that we shall shortly be able to report to the House on secondary care in the armed forces following the implementation of defence costs study No. 15, which has attracted considerable criticism.
At Peterborough, we saw how the largely RAF-manned MDHU, which was set up only a year ago, is operating within an national health service hospital. We were given an interesting tour of the facilities and were most impressed with the calibre and dedication of the RAF doctors, nurses and technicians. They have set up a new facility in a hospital with no direct military connection and appear to be doing well. We were concerned by the loss of military ethos, however, despite the link with RAF Wittering, which is only 14 miles away. The Committee's report will also contain comments on morale and staff retention at Peterborough and the other three military hospitals.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the importance of the reserves. The Royal Army Medical Corps units in the Territorial Army provide an important backup to the Army's medical services, some of them organised as field hospitals. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is far smaller than the Territorial Army, has no such ethos, but there could be a case for improving recruitment into the Royal Auxiliary Air Force concentrating not on flying, but on medical services. There must be plenty of people who served in the RAF and may now be working in the national health service who would welcome the opportunity to join the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in a medical capacity. That might provide the reserves that we would require if we had fully to mobilise and provide the number of field hospitals that are required under our establishment figures.
Debates on the RAF are traditionally a series of litanies of arguments why more money should be spent on equipment. That is why I congratulate the Government on finding £9,000 million—nearly half the total defence budget—for purchasing equipment, including £1,500 million to be spent on aircraft systems. We were pleased to see the decisions on the replacement maritime patrol aircraft, the conventionally-armed stand off missile and the anti-armour weapon.
On Eurofighter, we welcomed the United Kingdom's announcement last September about production. Members of the Select Committee have done our best to persuade our opposite numbers in the Germany and Italian Parliaments to persuade their Governments to follow suit. The sooner that happens, the better.
Let me make a quick comment on heavy lift, which the Defence Committee is investigating at the moment. The Government are considering whether to rejoin the European future large aircraft programme. The aircraft represents a considerable increase in capability from the current fleet of Hercules C-130Ks and the C-130Js now coming into service. The ability rapidly to transport into the theatre heavy equipment such as support helicopters, armoured vehicles and engineering equipment has become more important in the light of the formation of the joint rapid deployment force last August.
The FLA will provide that capability, as would the American C-17. No decision on procurement is required yet, but it would be right to demonstrate greater commitment to the project at this stage, partly to influence its development, but also to assist British industry in its efforts to gain a significant proportion of the construction work. The formation of Airbus Military will help the development of that aircraft.
The Select Committee also received an excellent presentation from the Society of British Aerospace Companies on the foresight action technology programme. In his reply to the debate, will my hon. Friend confirm that the MOD is committed to spending £20 million on that programme? The potential applications for the RAF include projects on the powered wing, flight crew environment, advanced fuselage and guided weapons. I understand that the DTI has shown some reluctance to participate and may be holding up the programme. That would be very regrettable.
This spring we see the retirement of Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon as Chief of Air Staff, a post that he has held since 1992, through the very difficult years of reduction in the size of his service. I think that the House would want to pay tribute to his achievements and to extend its best wishes to him in his retirement, and its best wishes to his successor. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Johns, who will lead the 65,000 men and women who make up the world's best air force: the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Although it is some time since I have spoken in a defence debate, sitting on these Benches the years seem to melt away, and very little has changed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The arguments have not changed.

Mr. O'Neill: As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the arguments have not changed. One thing that has changed, though, is that The Daily Telegraph is prepared to allow my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party space in its columns to write what it said was
a reasonably intelligent sixth-form essay".
which is perhaps being damned with faint praise. Even such an essay is considerably better than the Minister's Bunteresque GCSE performance today.
It is irresponsible to try to create artificial divides on an issue such as defence. While the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was making a mess of agricultural policy in his former post, some of us were trying to work with the Government and other parties in the House and in Europe in insisting that the Eurofighter was an essential part of the defence—in those days—of western Europe and that it was important to have a proper capability in Europe. It is irresponsible to try to undermine the bipartisan unity that was achieved when people in Germany and Italy are ready to seize on any sign of weakness on the British side.
It is significant that the editorial in The Daily Telegraph that accompanied my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's article made the point that the article made little reference to the Eurofighter; it is important that it also referred to the need for a reconsideration of our defence priorities. When there is a clear understanding, as there is today, that a Labour Government will order 232 Eurofighters, as the Government are intending to do, it is irresponsible to suggest that a party expecting to come to power—we may not, but if we do—is not entitled, as any incoming Government would be, to reconsider its priorities.
The Conservatives had such a review in "Options for Change", when the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was Secretary of State for Defence. He looked at the threats, the capabilities and the roles that we had to fulfil as a country. Labour Members did not agree with his methodology. Indeed, that is perhaps one of the reasons why the Labour party persists in arguing that there should be a defence review. It would be irresponsible of any party that says that it is necessary to have a review not to take account in that review of capabilities. The capabilities will include 232 Eurofighter aircraft because Labour Members are committed to that. We have been committed to it from the outset because we recognise that it is wrong to put our men into the air in aircraft that are out of date and not the best creation to which British manufacturing can make a major contribution.

Mr. Bill Walker: Let me make it quite clear that I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's integrity. I remember when he was a member of the shadow defence team. Why did the yardstick that he is describing not apply to the TSR2? He will understand why Conservative Members are apprehensive.

Mr. O'Neill: The TSR2 was a source of disappointment to many in the services—probably when the hon. Gentleman was serving in them. I do not think that what happened then is in any way similar to the Eurofighter or that the instances are in any way parallel. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. He may not like my answer, but I shall give it to him. I do not think that the example of the TSR2 is necessarily comparable.

Mr. Mans: rose—

Mr. O'Neill: I want to make progress. My comments so far are not the purpose of my speech. I do not think that we need to talk about the matter in quite such a vein

33 years on. I suppose that we could almost argue that, 33 years before the TSR2, Ramsay MacDonald's Government could have been accused, due to their economic difficulties, of doing things in the defence budget.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am left in complete confusion. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify his remarks, since the matter has not been clarified by his colleagues. Is he or is he not advocating that the Eurofighter will be in the strategic defence review? Does he support the ordering of 232 such aircraft, or is that order now open to being cut?

Mr. O'Neill: I have not participated in a defence debate with the hon. Lady before, although I recall that when I was doing the work in which my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are engaged, she was pushing prams for peace, or something like that. Perhaps she just has difficulty understanding things. I shall explain again very simply. With the exception of the point about the TSR2, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), with whom I have crossed swords on many occasions, would have made it clear if he had not understood.
My understanding is straightforward. The Labour party is committed to sustaining the order for 232 Eurofighters, a defence review and the fact that any kind of defence review must take account of what we have, what we are to have, our capabilities and how we deploy it against the threats.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) does not know any more about defence and strategic thinking than would cover the back of a postage stamp, so think that we should make progress. The point that I was making is that it is important that we do not send our airmen into the air in aircraft that are not properly tested and equipped.
I want to speak primarily about the Chinook helicopter crash in June 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre. On board were 25 of the most senior members of the British intelligence community and a four-man aircrew, all of whom were from the RAF's special forces. The crash was recently the subject of a "Cutting Edge" documentary, which raised a number of questions, some of which have already been raised in another place by Lord Chalfont and others. I think that the families of two of the airmen—and, I would imagine, the families of the pilots and the two other crew members, as well as the other 25 people—would like to try to clear up the matter.
I raise the issue because there seems to be a contradiction. An inquiry was carried out, during which the president of the board of inquiry judged that he was not ready to criticise the pilots for human failings. That view was overturned, yet it was also contrary to the opinion expressed by Sir Stephen Young, the sheriff in charge of the fatal accident inquiry. A fatal accident inquiry is a feature of Scots law. It is not carried out in the English legal system, where such a matter would be the subject of a coroner's court.
The inquiry was rigorous. It was suggested at the beginning that Sir Stephen, as a civilian and, therefore, a layman in such matters, might not understand the intricacies of the technical matters involved, but it is fair to say that, by the end of the inquiry, no one who reported it or was present was in any doubt about the sheriff's mastery of his subject.
When Sir Stephen completed his findings, he made it clear that as far as he was concerned there was no proof that the pilots were to blame. That raises a question in the minds of the public, and especially in the minds of the families.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is giving a lucid explanation of the role of the fatal accident inquiry in Scots law, particularly of the role of the sheriff, Sir Stephen Young. Is he aware—I think he will be—that in a fatal accident inquiry all interested parties are entitled to be represented, so the evidence upon which the sheriff draws his conclusion has been open to cross-examination by every party, every department and every institution with an interest in the outcome of the inquiry?

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should happily step back from his expertise in such matters and give him the Floor, because he is a distinguished member of the Scottish Bar. What I have to say about the evidence will become more apparent in a minute or two.
First, I shall set the scene. The Chinooks had been in service for several years, Boeing had just refitted them to make them into mark 2s, and they were being brought into commission at the time. I have heard on authority from the families that, in telephone conversations with the pilots, the crew were not happy about the flightworthiness of the craft that they were to handle.
The crew had access to manuals containing flight limitation documents. Normally, such documents outline scenarios in which the craft in question could be in trouble, but in this instance the Chinook manual stated only that such details were to be issued. We must ask why the pilots were flying aircraft without that potentially crucial information. How could they be considered grossly incompetent when they had no access to the information?
As I understand it, test pilots had grounded the craft on numerous occasions in the days before the crash, which included the very day before the crash. Five days beforehand, the same aircraft had demonstrated control system problems, including "undemanded engine shutdown" and "spurious engine fail captions".
Given the documented evidence of several serious technical problems with the mark 2, can the RAF really be so sure that there were no problems during the flight in question? I gave the Minister notice of some of the points that I intended to raise, so I hope that he will be able to respond to my questions.
The RAF still ordered the craft to be used, albeit with certain restrictions, such as height restrictions. Flight Lieutenant Tapper had asked for a mark 1 aircraft to be placed on standby because he was worried, and not certain that the craft could do the job. The RAF refused to make such a craft available.
As hon. Members will be aware, this type of aircraft does not carry a black box recorder. The Chinook carried only the TANS navigation equipment—provided by Racal, I believe. The manufacturers do not regard it as equipment that can be used as reliable evidence in such cases, but it appears that, in the absence of anything else, the RAF based at least some of the inquiry's conclusions on the TANS evidence. We need to know whether the

Minister regards the information that was used as sufficient to provide what was apparently the sole basis of that extreme decision.
There would be two other crew members on such flights—the loadmasters, whose job it is to monitor the flight and advise if necessary. Those two were also part of the RAF special forces. One would have imagined that they would see a mountain coming up in plenty of time to warn the pilots, but the RAF concluded that they would not have been aware of the situation and that no blame could be placed on them. The television programme implied that the RAF considered them quite unimportant; I do not know whether the loadmasters would have agreed.
New or, rather, refitted aircraft were being brought into service, perhaps in too great a hurry. Perhaps there was an over-anxiety to use what was considered the best possible kit—the best possible equipment available for one of the most important group of passengers that the RAF was ever likely to carry.
We all know that the people in the Chinook were at the very heart of security and intelligence operations in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the immediate reaction to the crash was to ask whether the aircraft had been the subject of hostile action, because so many vital cogs in the Northern Ireland security machine were in one place at one time.
We are entitled to ask why so many vital personnel were concentrated in one aircraft. Given that there was no mark 1 there, as had been requested, was the aircraft in question the only one available? That raises questions about the way in which the business was handled. Certainly there are questions that were raised by the board of inquiry, but were not really resolved.
The board of inquiry report discussed possible technical failures. Paragraph 35d says:
Nevertheless, an unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced by the Chinook HC2, which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence, remained a possibility, and could not be discounted.
Paragraph 48 discusses the final few seconds of the flight, and there we read such phrases as "most likely track", "estimated final track", and
It could not be proven that the aircraft flew in a straight line … to the point of impact".
Other points could be raised. Indeed, in paragraph 61 of his summary, the president of the board stated:
The Board based its findings on logical argument derived from the limited evidence … There were many potential causes of the accident and … the Board was unable to determine a definite cause … the Board could not avoid a degree of speculation".
That was the board's decision, but it was subsequently overturned when the matter went further up the chain of command.
Despite the fact that it is suggested that the aircraft was serviceable at the time of the crash, the investigator from the air accidents investigation branch says on page 1 of his report:
The pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft could not be positively verified".
On subsequent pages the report says:
the possibility of control system jam could not be positively dismissed … most of the attachment inserts on both flight control system pallets had detached … with little evidence to eliminate the possibility of pre-impact detachment".


Those are matters that appear in the written evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has already pointed out that, in the public court hearings, a range of issues were the subject of consideration—indeed, of the kind of nit-picking detailed consideration that is a feature of such inquiries, in which counsel on both sides wish to ensure that their cases are heard to the fullest extent.
I imagine that no expense or effort was spared. Such was the importance and significance of the inquiry—because of the number of people involved and their significance in security terms—it was vital that the truth be reached. As far as the truth could be reached, the sheriff said that these men could not be culpable. That view was held by the board of inquiry, but when the report went to the final stage of consideration, it was overturned. The families are entitled to know the circumstances in which the report was overturned and why greater weight was placed on the internal report than on the proceedings of a Scottish court.
Two young men had great careers in front of them, and their families now have only the memory of what they achieved in their lives. They also have the distressing and worrying thought that their names may never be cleared because a court of inquiry said one thing while the board of inquiry said something else. Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper deserve better than they have had, and they probably deserved better equipment than they had to fly. No criticism is made of their professionalism, as they raised questions and echoed the doubts shared by an awful lot of their comrades.
This House is entitled to answers to at least some of these questions. I understand that—for a variety of reasons—we will never get to the bottom of the matter. We know that, because of its security significance, people were going over the ground with a fine-toothed comb for 48 hours after the crash. We know that the accident investigators were not allowed in for 48 hours. That is understandable, but again it raises questions about the nature of the certainty that the Ministry of Defence now seems to have. My understanding is that people are not accused of gross negligence if there is a scintilla of doubt. As far as I can see, there was at least a scintilla of doubt in the mind of the sheriff, and more than a scintilla of doubt in the minds of the individuals involved in the preliminary treatment of the inquiry.
This is one of the few opportunities that we get in the House—short of an Adjournment debate—to raise a matter like this. I do so because I happen to be friendly with the father of one of the young men involved. I have no constituency interest in the crash, which did not occur in my part of Scotland. But for the peace of mind of the families, for the young men's comrades, and for the people who continue to fly these aircraft, we are entitled to know if there were lessons to be learnt and, if so, whether they have been put into practice.
Perhaps most important, we need to know why these young men have been singled out—as they appear to have been—for what their families consider to be unjust

treatment and consideration that flies in the face of a judicial inquiry which, as has been pointed out, was open to the widest possible scrutiny.

Mr. Keith Mans: It is a great pleasure to speak in this annual debate on the RAF which, this year, has come a little earlier than on previous occasions. I hope that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will not mind if I do not follow him too far down the route that he chose. However, I and others who have served as aircrew in the past sympathise with the families concerned, and know how they must feel. Split-second decisions or losses of concentration—if that is what happened—can have such results. It shows more than anything that when we operate aircraft of that sort, the pilots must be as well trained as possible and their equipment must be as serviceable as possible. I shall return to that subject, as it has some relevance to that tragic Chinook accident. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan said, we shall never know the final facts of the incident.
This past year has been one of great change for the RAF, and I should like to add my comments to those of earlier speakers on the death of Sir Frank Whittle. Like myself, he was a cadet at Cranwell—although he was there long before me. I well remember learning what he achieved in 1929, when he patented the idea of the jet engine. He then saw it fly from Cranwell some 12 years later. I remember looking at the cut sections of the engines in the engineering section at Cranwell and being fascinated by the simplicity of the principle of the jet engine. It must have taken a man of genius to understand the power that could be produced from such a simple proposition.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said about the present Chief of the Air Staff. Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon has taken the RAF through a difficult period, and has done so with skill and dedication. It was difficult, because the changes were not supported by huge numbers of the forces that he led. The fact that he has achieved that while keeping the Air Force together, and the fact that it is still a superb fighting machine, is of great credit to him, and he can retire knowing that.
We in the House are very good at taking credit for things, and I noticed that the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), leading for the Opposition, mentioned the defence orders. He was perfectly right to say that Labour supported those orders, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. But the real credit goes to the Chief of the Air Staff and his staff, who constantly made the point which, in the end, was accepted by everybody—that one cannot expect the RAF to go through a reduction process, unless one gives it hope for the future by ensuring that it has the equipment to do the job into the next century. Sir Michael Graydon did that, and he should be proud of his great achievement.
Those equipment orders have given the RAF hope for the future, and I am delighted by them. They will provide work for many people in Lancashire—including some of my constituents—and they will ensure that the RAF remains a formidable fighting force into the next century. However, there are obviously other orders and procurement decisions that must be taken in the future.


We need to ensure that there is a good weapons system on the Eurofighter, and I hope that a decision on the future air-to-air missile will be made this year—the sooner the better, as far as I am concerned. The Meteor proposal from the British Aerospace consortium should be strongly considered.
The other area that is important is heavy lift, and I should like the Government to sign at the earliest possible opportunity the European staff requirement in the future large aircraft consortium. That is not to say at this stage that that is necessarily the aircraft that the RAF should buy—far from it. There are many ways in which we could meet that need, but it is a need that must be met. We need a heavy lift capability on this side of the Atlantic, and we need it as soon as possible.
I am encouraged by the lateral thinking that has taken place about the proposal and by some of the ideas that have been put before the Select Committee on Defence, on which I serve with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. Leasing is a possibility, and we could certainly use a more commercial way to procure the aircraft. One of the interesting things about the discussion on the C130J two or three years ago was that it led to the FLA consortium realising that it had to look again at the way in which it was putting its bid together, to ensure that it was done under the commercial auspices of Airbus. We could also use techniques that allow for a shorter time scale.
The A340, probably the most advanced airliner ever built, went from drawing board to airline service in less than four years. That is how we must proceed, channelling people's minds and ensuring that those in Ministry of Defence procurement, for example, do not constantly make changes to the design specification; they must decide what they want and get it built, and there should be penalty clauses that operate if it does not come up to the specification that was clearly made in the first place, so that the companies involved understand that it must be made to work as Airbus so effectively made both the A330 and the A340 work, within the time scale and to the performance specified by the airlines.
We must examine closely the way in which we are to procure heavy lift capability for the Royal Air Force. In the short term, we should at least be involved in the future large aircraft programme through the signing of the European staff requirement. As far as I can see, there is no downside to signing it: it does not commit us to anything, but merely ensures that we still have a seat at the table—I do not intend to take that analogy any further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) intervened on the subject of the Bulldog replacement. Clearly, value for money—not necessarily the cheapest price, I hasten to add—must drive that project forward. There are considerable advantages in that respect in having one basic trainer for all pilots coming into the Air Force, whether they come through university cadetship or arrive direct from school and go to the flying school at present operated by the Hunting Company at Barkston Heath.
I am sure that when instructors move on to the Tucano, they can understand the slight differences in ability, but I have a gut feeling that there will be a slight advantage, when it comes to the next stage in assessing abilities, if everyone is started off on the same aircraft. There should

also be some saving, which may not be as tangible as it should be, in terms of back-up, standardisation of spares and other matters associated with supporting aircraft.
Most people would expect me to mention the Eurofighter. It is important, not only because the Air Force needs it in the next century to be able to stay at the top table with the American and other air forces, but because it will provide the platform, or at least the technology, for further developments. The French, sadly, are not in the project, but I wonder whether developments from Eurofighter will not find themselves in service with the French air force as well as ours in five or 10 years' time. I shall leave it at that. We need that aircraft.
There were some boisterous exchanges earlier this afternoon about the different parties' views. All I can say to the hon. Member for Warley, West is that, if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I should be saying precisely the same things to my Front-Bench colleagues as I said to him earlier tonight. The only way of ensuring that the aircraft goes ahead and that our allies have confidence that we back it fully is by saying that it is fine to have a defence review, but that the Eurofighter must not be in it.
Once we have that guarantee, I shall be extremely happy, not because an Opposition politician has agreed with the Government, but because the Air Force can then have confidence that that programme at least will not be affected by anything that happens at the general election.
Ballistic missile defence has been mentioned. It is highly commendable that I first heard about ballistic missile defence, about eight years ago, not through the media or from the Ministry of Defence, but in the Chamber. I well remember the response from the Front Bench: it was almost as if one or two eccentric Back Benchers had mentioned something out of "Star Wars". That illustrates the fact that there is still knowledge in the Chamber that is often ahead of what is going on in government or in the media. It is most encouraging that the subject is being taken so much more seriously today than it was all those years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned the technology foresight programme. When we consider new technologies in the future, we must not regard them purely in a defence or commercial sense. We must form partnerships of the kind that have been so useful in America recently and have driven technology forward.
We must understand that the majority of the technologies that we use in our defensive systems will in future probably come from commercial rather than military research. Commercial time scales are shorter. Indeed, one could argue that, because of the stretched-out time scale, some of the Eurofighter and EJ200 technology is behind the latest technology in the Rolls-Royce Trent engine.
I believe that in future military technology will be driven much more by commercial technology. That must be recognised by the Department of Trade and Industry as well as by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that a better partnership can be developed between those Departments, so that we can drive sufficient resources into programmes such as the powered wing, which have both commercial and military benefits, but which will not go ahead in this country unless the Departments get closer together. They must think more clearly about projects that can bring such benefits in terms of jobs and wealth creation.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the number of redundancies in the Royal Air Force and the fact that the process has gone smoothly. One should also remember that some of the people remaining in the Air Force wanted to leave and that those who remain have to deal with the problems that exist as a result of the others going. Gaps are created and people have to work harder to fill those gaps. Those who remain have in many ways the harder job.
What I say next may not be very popular. When considering redundancies, I think that it might be a good idea if one or two more senior RAF officers left sooner rather than later, to avoid creating a steep pyramid or church steeple at the top of the Royal Air Force and running the risk of losing tomorrow's leaders because we are hanging on for too long to today's. The problem is that the numbers of air vice-marshals and air marshals are almost equal. That poses a problem for people immediately below that rank.
We also need to ensure that we keep a pool of skilled technicians and engineers. Contractorisation is fine, provided that we recognise that the figures that are coming out of the programme are one-off figures. They rely on a supply of highly skilled manpower leaving the Royal Air Force which can be picked up easily by the companies that do the jobs previously done by uniformed airmen. That cannot go on for ever. We must develop partnerships between those companies and the Royal Air Force to ensure that when contracts come up for renewal, the cost does not go up by 15 per cent. or even double. There must be a clear guarantee that we have not simply pushed into the future the costs of the savings that we are making now. I think that that can be achieved. The companies to which I have spoken recognise that and are keen to produce a solution.
While I support contractorisation and novel methods, I am a gradualist. Things should be done slowly, especially in the armed forces, which have an important role. It can be matter of life and death. Where we can, we must avoid rapid changes of emphasis or policy that can affect the ability of the services to do their jobs. That is especially relevant to the RAF. I urge the Minister to consider carefully any novel ways of, for example, servicing and supporting the Eurofighter. Let us get right the contractual arrangements in respect of the things for which they are at present employed. In future, we might examine the innovative and creative ideas that sometimes come from people outside the Royal Air Force.
I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister look closely at the problems that have occurred in the defence medical services, and especially the Royal Air Force section, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, the Chairman of the Defence Committee. The Committee is considering that and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt our conclusions. However, it is already clear that something must be done quickly to stop the defence medical services becoming a shadow of its former self. We must examine whether some of the problems with things that have not gone as well as had been anticipated can be read across to other matters, so that we approach such ideas a little more slowly.
That approach applies equally to the dramatic changes in pilot training. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces rightly replied to an inquiry about the effects of contractorisation on pilot training at places such as RAF Valley that there were no signs that anything was wrong and that things were going very well. I should have directed my concern at the number of changes that have taken place in the flying training system and the fact that all advanced and weapon training for fast jet pilots has been squashed into RAF Valley. There is no flexibility and it would not take much to go wrong for there to be dire results. We must monitor closely what happens, to ensure that we do not have to spend more money further downstream, when pilots and aircrew arrive at their squadrons, to make up for any shortfall in their ability. We should avoid further changes until we have decided whether any corrections need to be made to present arrangements.
On keeping a pool of skilled technicians and experienced aircrew, the Royal Air Force seems to have little trouble recruiting and can retain, generally, the number of aircrew that it needs. However, the latest figure for the trained strength of the Royal Air Force is slightly below the required figure. That leads me to believe that matters will not get easier. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully what the Royal Navy has had to do to retain its Sea Harrier pilots. I believe that they are being paid £10,000 to stay on. He should recognise that there is a huge imbalance between the relatively small Royal Air Force and the large civilian airline community. It would take only a small increase in the requirements of the latter to have a dramatic effect on the number of pilots in the former. We must tackle that problem before it happens rather than waiting for it to happen and having to use crisis solutions, which may not be as effective and which are certainly much more expensive.
I should like to mention the reserves. Like many hon. Members, I welcome the appointment at the Ministry of Defence of Brigadier Richard Holmes to look after the reserve forces. It is an excellent move. We are at least moving in the right direction on that, by recognising the increased importance of the reserve forces in the overall defence environment. Sometimes I feel that many who have spent their careers as Regular service men do not fully comprehend the differences between what they do and what happens in the reserves. I should declare an interest as an RAF reservist and a pilot. I am pleased also, because I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the point decades ago. It long fell on deaf ears and I am delighted for him that it is finally happening. I am certain that it will be a dramatic success.
The Air Cadet Force is part of the reserve movement, and I am slightly worried about it. During the defence cost studies, the air cadet movement felt that it was reviewed. The money spent on it was reduced; youngsters got fewer air experience flights; responsibility for it was split; the Air Officer Commanding disappeared; its aircraft joined another part of the command structure. I understand that there is to be a further review, largely because of the changes that have occurred in the Royal Air Force. I realise that it is important to look at who is responsible for cadet squadrons when there are fewer stations. Having said that, I hope that there is no hidden agenda. I hope that the review is aimed at increasing the


size and effectiveness of the air cadet movement and not designed to reduce costs, so that some RAF officers can spend the money elsewhere. I go no further than that.
The House is unanimous about the importance of the air cadet movement and agrees that it should be expanded. I agree with the hon. Member for Warley, West: the air cadet movement should be expanded on the basis of what already exists. We are not talking about an air cadet unit in every school—far from it. Such units already exist in the community and they should have the maximum number of cadets that they can recruit, increased at a sustainable rate. If a review is to take place, what is required more than anything else is that the staff who give of their spare time to look after those youngsters should be given confidence that there will be a vibrant air cadet—and Army and sea cadet, for that matter—organisation in the future, so that they can see a future in their participation. Too much change and disruption often results in volunteers deciding to call it a day and going to help with some other voluntary organisation.
I therefore hope that the Regular officers who are tasked with looking at the air cadet movement fully take into account the views of reservists and understand the special nature of that movement, which, in many parts of the country, often provides the only link with the rest of the community. For instance, in the north-west, where I come from, just one RAF unit remains, so virtually the only contact that 6.3 million people have with the RAF is through the cadets, who can be seen in uniform on Remembrance Sunday and who help in the community.
One of the themes running through my speech is the fact that changes should be relatively gradual, to ensure that they do not damage operational effectiveness. It is inevitable that, because of the Labour party's decision to have a defence review, a shadow hangs over the RAF. I hope that that shadow will be temporary and light, and I suspect that Labour Members in the Chamber tonight also hope that it will be light. In a spirit of companionship with Opposition Members, I should like to say that if, through some mistake that the electorate might make, the Labour party became the next Government, we would be right behind Labour Members who fought the Treasury and others, to ensure that our armed forces were reduced no further.
As I have said to colleagues, I find it impossible to talk about stability in the armed forces when cuts are being made. Equally, it is impossible to talk about stability in the armed forces if they are being offered a defence review at the same time.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) speaks with a great deal of common sense in these debates, not least because he has direct experience. His contribution to debates on the Royal Air Force and to the work of the Defence Select Committee is invaluable. It is therefore a great pleasure to follow him on this occasion.
If the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) had a sense of déjà vu in returning to a defence debate, having been absent for several years, I share that experience to the extent that my recollection of the period immediately before the 1992 general election is that the subject of defence seemed to appear on the Order Paper once a week. For reasons that I could never quite understand,

we debated nuclear weapons almost weekly. The then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), delivered the same speech; the hon. Member for Clackmannan delivered the same speech; the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) delivered the same speech; and I delivered the same speech—

Dr. Reid: We all delivered the same speeches.

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) points out, most of us are still delivering the same speeches.
I suspect that there was some attempt to try to embarrass the Opposition and it seems that we may be subject to that again in the period between now and the general election, which may make you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anxious that the date of the general election should be sooner rather than later.

Mr. Me William: If the hon. Gentleman extends his mind forward a little, he may find that Conservative Members are less keen to try to embarrass the Opposition because they cut defence expenditure in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995" by 36 per cent. over the past three years, not 31 per cent.—there is £80 million tucked away in the budget. Conservatives may not be quite so keen to expose themselves to the fact that they have slashed expenditure by more than a third in the past three years.

Mr. Campbell: I do not want to comment on the propensity of Conservative Members to expose themselves in one way or another. However, the idea that the Opposition will be embarrassed by constant debates on defence is misconceived.
The debate has ranged far and wide. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) intervened on the hon. Member for Clackmannan about the cancellation of the TSR2. If one is to go back that far, one must remember that the right honourable Duncan Sandys, who was then Minister of Aviation, suggested that we should abandon manned aircraft altogether and rest the air defence of the United Kingdom on missiles. That just goes to show that going so far back in history is not always productive.
Since the important and much-welcomed procurement decisions of last summer, the intervening months have been comparatively quiet for the RAF. As the Minister for the Armed Forces eloquently demonstrated in his opening speech, that does not mean that the RAF has not been busy. That comparative period of quiet has been warmly welcomed by the RAF, particularly by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, who, both publicly and privately, has called for a period of stability. Indeed, he did so just two days ago when he attended a function in the Palace of Westminster. I wish to be associated with the tributes that have been paid to Sir Michael, both for his personal kindness to me but also to recognise his sustained professional leadership during a period that is generally accepted as having been one of great difficulty for the RAF. If the RAF needs stability, all the other services need it too. However, those who keep a close eye on the RAF have observed that it may have suffered more than the others, having been subject to what is sometimes described as "turbulence" and it therefore needs a period in which it can consolidate.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are no doubt familiar with the old Chinese curse that one should be condemned to live in interesting times. We must live in interesting times now, given that The Daily Telegraph becomes the forum in which the leader of the Labour party confirms the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent as a cornerstone of British defence policy and calls for that same stability to which I referred.
How can stability be assured in terms that would satisfy Sir Michael Graydon and other senior commanders, as well as all those who serve in the armed forces? I do not believe that stability of the kind that most hon. Members would want will be sustained by further reductions in the defence budget, whether by frontal attack or covert action. It is impossible to have stability other than at present expenditure levels.
The reason why the hon. Member for Clackmannan felt that nothing had changed was that this evening we have had some rather unproductive and arid exchanges about a defence review. In reality, the words are meaningless until one sees what is done under that heading.
If the approach was to say that we must match our commitments to our existing resources, the inference would be that if there was an imbalance between resources and commitments, commitments would be cut. One cannot escape history and the words "defence review" have historically meant cutting expenditure and then being driven to reducing commitments. I say tonight, as I have said on several previous occasions when this topic has been debated in the House, if a defence review means anything, it must include a willingness to increase expenditure if that is shown to be necessary.
If there is one thing that we lack in these debates, it is any proper analysis of future defence funding. If we assume acceptance of the Government forecast—indeed, any Government's forecast—for inflation, we are entitled to expect that the defence budget will rise in line with that figure, whatever it may be. However, we know that defence inflation is historically higher than what one might describe as ordinary inflation. Therefore, if we seek to maintain real spending in our defence budget, we have to increase spending beyond the inflation rate. If we do not do that, we are, effectively, presiding over a real-terms cut.
Why do I place such emphasis on expenditure? It is self-evidently important for all the services, but I believe that it is particularly important for the RAF, because it has so many expensive procurement projects that are likely to come to fruition over the next few years. There are many besides me who believe that by the end of the decade the RAF will have exhausted the potential for savings from rationalisation and structural reorganisation and, shortly after the end of the century, major procurement projects such as Eurofighter and the replacement of the maritime patrol aircraft will reach their peak, so placing substantial demands on the RAF budget. There are some who believe that, if there were to be any effort to cut RAF expenditure at that time, it could be met only by cuts in the front line. I suspect that that issue will have to be faced by whichever party is in government at that time.
Let us take the matter further and consider the cost of the procurement of the new generation of fast jet aircraft. If we are to participate in the joint strike fighter or be part

of the future offensive air system, there is every reason to believe that the cost of participation in those programmes will be very high. How will we be able to meet those costs? Some say, only by ordering a reduced number of aircraft; but if that were to happen, the result would be a fall in the front-line combat strength of the RAF and might well lead to the conclusion that it was no longer possible to maintain an air fleet in all areas of present activity.
I am convinced that one way in which we might meet those gaps is to consider closer co-operation and integration with other European air forces. The Minister properly pointed to the conceptual and now the implementation success of the Franco-British air group. That is likely to be the way of the future and it will not be only the United Kingdom looking for such arrangements: we know that the Belgian and Netherlands air forces have pooled their air transport resources and that there is a joint Dutch-Belgian squadron supporting NATO operations in Bosnia from an air field in Italy. If we consider for a moment the issue of ballistic missile defence—which I accept is an issue of great urgency and on which, I understand, as recently as last month the Ministry of Defence said no decision had been taken—we cam see that any useful programme of ballistic missile defence will have to involve our European neighbours and, almost certainly, the United States. The pressure for integration and co-operation will be driven by financial considerations. I say again, to maintain a full range of capability in Europe, in air forces as well as on land and at sea, three principles have to be embraced: common procurement, interoperability and force specialisation.
Like others, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women of the RAF. I do so, not only from an informed position as a member of the Select Committee on Defence and as someone who has taken an interest in defence matters for some time, but from my constituency interests. I regularly have the opportunity to see in practice the skill and professionalism of those who serve at RAF Leuchars, which is in my constituency. In July 1995, I had the opportunity, not afforded to many, to sit in the back seat of a Tornado F3 aircraft and, in the words of the station commander, to be shown a full range of its ability—a somewhat delphic promise, given that, just before the hatch came down, he handed in half a dozen sick bags. Happily none was required. My point is that that extraordinary opportunity, for which I am extremely grateful, allowed me to see at first hand what is involved in driving—if I may use the colloquialism—a fast jet. It allowed me to see, hear and experience the extraordinary skill and professionalism that is required. That skill and professionalism is being demonstrated from Gioia del Colle, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Falklands.
In recent times, there has been an increase in postings to service abroad and we cannot escape the conclusion—it comes from talking to RAF personnel of all ranks—that more time abroad for air crew and front-line mechanical support has brought its own strains and stresses. On an occasion like this, it is right to acknowledge that RAF morale is fragile; there is no point in denying that, but we would do better to recognise it and to take steps to remedy any problems.
It is also right that we recognise—as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, pointed out—that there have been occasions when operational effectiveness


has been below what could legitimately be expected. As the Select Committee noted in one of its reports, on one day in September 1995, only six of the 30 Tornado GR1s stationed at RAF Bruggen in Germany were serviceable. We know also that we are still in the period of 12 months' suspension of NATO inspections, which was introduced by the RAF because of the pressure on personnel. There is a real question whether that period of suspension will be renewed in April, when the first 12-month period elapses. On the other side, it is clear that the new equipment orders of last summer have had a positive and beneficial effect on morale and that is entirely understandable.
Much of the debate has centred on Eurofighter, so let me make my position as clear as I can. I doubt that I have to make it clear to the hon. Member for Wyre, because I was part of a distinguished group of Members of Parliament who, under his leadership, were put in an RAF aircraft and sent to Germany in order to lobby our political equivalents in the German Parliament. There were members of all parties on that trip and it was clear that there was all-party support for the project. I am wholly convinced of the case for Eurofighter, but those of us who are convinced have an obligation to make that case, because outside the House and outside the circle of people who follow the issue closely there is a substantial volume of doubt. I do not mean only in the Bundestag or the Bundesrat, but here in the United Kingdom.
Given that the in-service date has slipped from 1998 to 2002 or 2003 and that there have been cost overruns, those who are sceptical have ready ammunition with which to assail the project. Why do I believe that the project is necessary?
First, the Royal Air Force needs Eurofighter; that is a fundamental principle of my support. Secondly, the proliferation of SU27s and Mig 29s and their derivatives, made freely available from Russia, suggests that if we are to be engaged—as we might be—in actions on behalf of the United Nations or otherwise, it is necessary to have an aircraft that will be able to meet and match them. Thirdly, if we lose this technology now we shall never get it back, and it has not only military but civilian application. Fourthly, many jobs are involved in the production of Eurofighter. British Aerospace is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom economy.
Those four factors make an overwhelming case for the Eurofighter project, but those who support it must continue to argue for it.
Reference was made to the fact that 232 Eurofighters are to be ordered. However, the evidence given to the Select Committee states that it is not inconceivable that 70 more might be ordered if the decision is taken to replace the Harrier GR7s with the Eurofighter. Three hundred aircraft may be ordered, not 232. That emphasises yet again the importance of the project.
I hope that the general election campaign will not be based on the question, "Will they order the Eurofighter or not?" Some of us remember that, for reasons that we could not understand, there was unfathomable enthusiasm in the Ministry of Defence for the idea of leasing in F16s and not proceeding with the mid-life update of the Tornado. Many people believed that, had that proposal been implemented, it would have had the effect of substantially undermining the Eurofighter project. If we are to argue about the relative commitment of each party

to Eurofighter, I am not convinced—I am trying to be as fair and objective as possible—that the position of the Ministry of Defence under the direction of the present Government has remained entirely consistent.
Assessing German participation in Eurofighter is a bit like trying to read the entrails in classical Rome, but I believe that the latest signs are slightly more favourable. Two elements—one political, one military—justify increased optimism.
First, as Germany throws aside the necessary constitutional shackles which followed the second world war and as the inhibition is removed against operations abroad by German forces, opinion regarding Eurofighter may become more sympathetic. If one is to fight abroad or make oneself available to fight abroad, one justifiably hopes to be as well equipped as possible.
Secondly, there have been reports in the past week or so that Germany is set to order 40 Eurofighters in the multi-role version, capable of striking against ground targets, using stand-off precision guided missiles. If those reports are correct—if that is a genuine strain of opinion in Germany—I hope that that suggests, as it appears to, a confirmation of the German position, which in some respects we have been told may be made clear at least by the end of the month.

Dr. Reid: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a perceptive contribution. To complement what he is saying, I remind him that the reading of entrails is also done by the Germans and that I can think of nothing that is more calculated to give succour, in the run-up to the Bundestag's decision, to those who would seek to scrap German support for Eurofighter than the dishonest rumours and stories put about that an incoming British Government would ditch the programme. That is the point about the juvenile irresponsibility of those who would seek to make short-term party political points about Eurofighter.

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not intervene in what seems to be a private fight.

Dr. Reid: indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell: I do not mean to deprecate what the hon. Gentleman says. I understand his point about the national interest. He must speak for his party. I speak for mine, and I point to my record of commitment for the Eurofighter project over several years as a justification for the view that the project must proceed, for the reasons that I have outlined.
It would be ludicrous to say that the future of the Royal Air Force would be threatened by any failure in the Eurofighter programme, but if the programme did not proceed it would substantially influence the shape and capability of the Royal Air Force.
I shall quickly mention one or two more procurement matters. I hope that the Minister may—if not today, then by letter—be able to say something to those of us with an interest in the matter about where the Government stand on the issue of the EH101. The Royal Air Force has an order for 22 in the utility version. That is a very large investment. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement knows that the Wessex, the Puma and the


Sea Kings, in various roles, must all be replaced by 2010. There is now a head of steam behind the suggestion that variants of the EH101 would be suitable for their replacement. It would be useful if the Minister would share as much as possible the thinking of the Ministry of Defence on that important procurement issue.
It would also be useful if the Minister would—if not today, another time—give some hint of the Government's thinking regarding the offer by Lockheed in relation to the C17s. As the hon. Member for Wyre said, there is an important issue as between C17s and the future large aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: McDonnell Douglas.

Mr. Campbell: Indeed. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
ASTOR has already been mentioned. A decision must now be made on the platform for the equipment, and I understand that a choice must be made between Gulf-Stream and Dassault. Can the Minister help the House with that—if not tonight, then later?
I am not persuaded in any sense by the siren voices that argue that the Royal Air Force should evolve into a support service. I remain convinced that it should remain a strategic force. I understood the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to confirm that as the present Government's policy; he has my support in that regard.
There is little doubt that, in United Nations or other peacekeeping or peacemaking operations, the Royal Air Force will be called on to provide air support for essentially ground-dominated operations, but the need for strategic use of air power on behalf of and in the interests of the United Kingdom may well arise in future. For that we need a Royal Air Force capable of that role.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I feel like an aging Lothario: I need more and more inspiration to perform, and in parliamentary terms we have had that inspiration from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There is nothing as exciting as a convert, and he certainly has the fervour of a convert. There is no one as fervent as an ebullient ex-hussar speaking up for air power, and he did so most effectively.
However, we need, not just parliamentary inspiration, but a bit of service inspiration. It is relatively easy for me; I need not go far—13 miles in fact, to the Polish war memorial at the corner of my constituency, by Royal Air Force Northolt. I look up and see the squadrons. For example, 303 Polish Squadron was the highest-scoring squadron in the battle of Britain. It only came in halfway through, declaring itself operational before it officially was.
Then I go further along the road, deeper into my constituency—I am always deep into my constituency, as we all are, especially with an election approaching—and I look at the main gate of the station. There I see a motto—my grandfathers were clergymen; they would have had to have a text—for my speech. It is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you, a former Air Force man, will recognise. The words are:
Aut portare aut pugnare prompti",

meaning ready either to carry or to fight. We do both in this place. We carry the burdens of the long speeches to which we must listen, and we are always ready to fight when an election approaches.
Air power is the decisive instrument in modern war. The versatility that the service possesses is so relevant to our contemporary world, to carry the logistics for operations or, if necessary, to fight. The Royal Air Force must be capable of war winning or conflict prevention. An example of war winning was our contribution in the Gulf war. In the Falklands war, our air power was perhaps more naval air than RAF, but without British air superiority over the islands, they could never have been regained.
In Bosnia, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the decisive intervention of offensive air power, so long called for by Conservative Members, and at last unleashed, brought the belligerents to their senses and restored a semblance of peace, which ultimately was ratified in the Dayton accords.
The obverse of the Gulf war is the operation of the no-fly zones over north and south Iraq, which persists to this day.
A final example was mentioned by my hon. Friend. I remind him of his early military days—I, too, was an ADC once—when I say:
Time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted.
How wise it was to send a Canberra down to Zaire, rather than sending 10,000 men to beat around in the jungle.
To express it in language that our American friends would understand, General Patton said that armed forces must have the decisive capability of being able
to get there fastest with the mostest".
That is important for a country whose military resources are so small. It is essential to be able to deploy decisive fire power at the critical point or, even better, by rapid deployment of force, to be able to deter. There was recently a classic example of such deterrence. When Kuwait fell, we rapidly sent our squadrons out to Saudi Arabia, and Saddam Hussein was checked.
I move on from such combative themes to speak about the shouldering of a burden, which the RAF does well. I have always been rather Gaullist in my attitude to logistics. The general always used to speak deprecatingly of "commissariat". Then I went to RAF Brampton and RAF Wytton, full of pessimism. I remembered Wytton, as ex-Pathfinder Force station, Canberras, reconnaissance establishment—all sorts of exciting things—and now headquarters of Logistic Command. I expected it to be bone-shakingly boring, but far from it—it was fascinating and thrilling. I saw some innovative and exciting work in husbanding and deploying resources, using, to me, unintelligible information systems which transform modern logistics.
If I may weary the House, I shall speak about the air transport aspects and the major improvements in the RAF's logistic and air transport capability which the Government have put in place. I start where I began, close to home, at RAF Northolt. How exciting it is that No. 32 squadron, the resident communications squadron, having been merged with the Queen's Flight, should be the Royal squadron. Everyone appreciates locally that it should be stationed at RAF Northolt. It is a sensible sharing of the


resources of the Queen's Flight, although I am not suggesting that the new royal yacht should necessarily be used in the same way.
I must, however, add a note of caution. The operations of RAF Northolt are crucial for the Government and the armed forces—the headquarters at High Wycombe, Northwood and Bentley Priory, for example, as well as the Ministry of Defence and the diplomatic and other services. It is used also for communications purposes by civil aircraft. I urge the Government not to allow the civil limits to be increased. There are currently 28 civil movements per day, Monday to Friday, and the hours are 8 am to 8 pm. If the limits were changed, the tremendous support that the station has from the local community might be put at risk, which would be a great shame.
At times of tension—for example, during the Gulf war—there can be military movements at all hours of the day and night, seven days a week. The area is heavily built up and entirely residential. My constituents, and people in neighbouring constituencies, do not object to military movements, but they would object to a serious increase in civil movements. An experiment started in October and will continue until the end of March to begin civil flying operations from 0700 rather than from 0800. I hope that, at the conclusion of the experimental period, Ministers will think long and hard, and that they will not make the extra hour a perpetual feature of operations at the station. I hope that they will stick to the original hours of 0800 to 2000, and no movements by civilian aircraft at weekends.
The helicopter force is a crucial element of our air transport capability. In the service, it used to be regarded as the poor relation, but not now, thanks to the ordering of the EH 101s and the Chinook 2s to augment the medium support helicopter force. I hope that the Government will soon be able to make the orders necessary to put in place the simulation facilities at RAF Benson, to get the show on the road and the training programme initiated.
The C-130Js were entirely the right decision, militarily and industrially. It is all to the good that the RAF is the launch customer. The Government need have no doubts that they did the right thing in ordering the aeroplane. However, there is still a gap in our capabilities—the heavy lift element about which we spoke previously.
I urge the Government preferably to procure, or to lease, the C-17. It is clearly the right aeroplane. It has been in service for many years with the United States air force. While I was at the Farnborough airshow, I had the great privilege of talking to the RAF exchange officer who had come across from Charleston on the aircraft. It still has important development potential. It could have an extra 10,000 gallons in the centre wing section for further range. It could have air-to-air refuelling capability. It can already receive fuel, of course, but as a tanker there is provision for Flight Refuelling Ltd.'s pods on the wings, the hard points are already there.
I shall quote some figures from a press release that was issued by the manufacturers McDonnell Douglas.
The aircraft has a payload of 157,000 lbs.
That is about three times the weight that a future large aircraft could carry.
It can take off from a 7,600 foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 ft. It can be refuelled in flight and its ferry range is 4,300 nautical miles.

The feature of the C-17 aircraft is its volume. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, it can take a main battle tank, armoured fighting vehicles, helicopters that have not been dismantled, missile batteries and associated radar systems, Bailey bridges, vehicle recovery equipment and tank transporters. We are in the business of power projection, whether in peace or in war, and that is the kind of instrument that we need to have at our disposition. At present, we rely on the United States Air Force and on chartering civilian aeroplanes. I have nothing against such charters, but the C-17 is the right way forward.
I join those who have spoken in paying tribute to Sir Michael Graydon who has been an outstanding Chief of the Air Staff. By his patience, courtesy and reliance on rational argument eventually to win the day, he has set an excellent example. We shall be sad to see him go, but we are glad that Sir Richard Johns is to succeed him because we know that he is experienced and well qualified for the job.
It is exciting that the Government and Sir Michael Graydon have put in place the total-force concept. I shall not refer to speeches that were made a long time ago, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) was exceedingly generous in referring to my consistent report for flying members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. When I made my maiden speech on the subject twenty-six and a half years ago, I little knew that it was an idea whose day had almost come. Anyone who can get an idea across in a generation is doing well in this place. However, one also knows that it could take only another generation for it to be undone because that is the way of human affairs.
The total-force concept with a core of highly trained regulars is exciting. The process of reducing numbers has been painful but it is sorting itself out. The force is backed by a range of auxiliary capabilities with a merged RAFVR and auxiliary air force, and will come into operation as a reserve force from April. There will be auxiliary and medical, maritime and helicopter support, operational missile system, anti-aircraft gun and the Royal Air Force regiment units. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, there could be medical, provost or motor transport too. Of course, the raison d'être of the service itself is being addressed—flying. It was always an anomaly that the Territorial Army had flying squadrons and the Royal Naval Reserve operated Sea Harriers capably in a reservist capacity but somehow the flying service could not manage to get its reservists into the air.
The services are backed by contractors and for the party that believes in business, that must be right. The companies that are involved in supporting the RAF, such as Marshall, Shorts and Huntings, to name but three, do the job very well. Their personnel should be members of the sponsored reserve so that they can be subject to the Air Force Acts and appropriately mobilised in time of emergency or war. At the end of five years, in spite of all the alarms and excursions, the traumas, excitements and sadnesses of rapid change, the service now has a total-force concept that will stand the test of time. It is well equipped and I confidently expect that, before long, the only big remaining gap in its inventory, apart from ballistic missile defence—heavy lift equipment—will be addressed through either the lease or the purchase of the C-17.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not normally participate in debates on the Royal Air Force but I have an important constituency case about which I intend to speak.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement wrote to me on 23 January with news that dealt a severe blow to me and my constituents. He told me that a contract for the maintenance of the TriStar RAF aircraft would be placed with the Gulf Aircraft Maintenance Company in the United Arab Emirates. I suppose as a means of softening the blow, he told me that a contract for the repair of TriStar components would be placed with Marshall of Cambridge. I expect that the Minister will refer to that contract in his winding-up speech.
The letter from the Minister stated that he had mixed news for Marshall. It is not mixed news: it is a disaster. The Marshall work force has carried out the work loyally and successfully for the past 13 years. The part of the contract that Marshall has retained will employ only about five people. With the loss of the main contract it is reckoned that, under the worst scenario, 300 jobs are now at risk. They are not ordinary jobs: they are skilled engineering jobs in a firm that has a high reputation for excellence and quality.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that Marshall was one of the excellent businesses undertaking defence contracts. Therefore, he and many hon. Members will be aware of Marshall's reputation for excellence and quality. Some hon. Members may feel that the loss of skilled engineering jobs in Cambridge is not a disaster as unemployment in the area is low, but the constituency of Cambridge does not have a good employment record. According to the Library, current unemployment in my constituency is 6.1 per cent. which is only just below the national average of 6.6 per cent.
Those who think that they can sacrifice jobs in Cambridge without a fuss are wrong and anyone who thinks that he can deliberately erode the country's skilled engineering base without a fuss is equally wrong. According to Radio Cambridgeshire this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has told the workers at Marshall to forget about protesting because Gulf Aircraft put in a better bid. Does he think that workers whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened will lie down quietly and forget that this has happened? Does he think that workers will not continue to feel angry and betrayed because they have been sold out by their own Government? Does the Minister feel so supremely confident that he will hang on to his seat at the general election that he can be so cavalier with people's jobs and livelihoods?
More serious even than the loss of skilled jobs is the message that is being sent to the rest of the world. It is, "Do not come to the UK for your aircraft maintenance." The challenge for Marshall is to hang on to the rest of its commercial contracts. It has to convince the rest of the world that the quality of its work has not deteriorated, that it still offers good value for money, reliability and continuity which its competitor, Gulf Aircraft, cannot match. That is made much more difficult by the Government's perverse decision.
The decision has given the Gulf Aircraft Company a new status which may enable it to take work away from the Cambridge work force. Is the new confidence that has

been generated by the order fully justified? I have seen information that suggests that GAMCO does not have a sound financial base. The firm employs cut-price Filipino and Pakistani labour—which is cheap and unreliable—and, as a result, has been able to undercut Marshall's bid. Will the new contractor have to comply with the same standards of quality, security, and health and safety as we require of United Kingdom bidders? I thank that the answer is no, as that is a matter for its Government. Marshall is being penalised for treating its workers well—for the training it provides, the quality standards that it espouses, and for the health and safety measures that are mandatory in this country. Worker health and safety will not meet the same high standards when the work is done abroad.
Mr. Michael Marshall, the chairman and chief executive of the company, has written to me to say:
our campaign to retain the contract was doomed from the outset. It is simply not possible for any company in the EU or the USA to compete with GAMCO, and their employment of low paid Far Eastern transient labour on a predominantly price consideration basis.
That message will chill the blood of Marshall workers, but it should also send a serious warning to other skilled workers in the United Kingdom. The message is that the Government do not care about skilled jobs: they care only about capitalising on low-cost labour abroad in order to reduce expenditure in public departments. The Government do not care about the consequent impact on employment in the United Kingdom—no wonder the social security bill continues to rise inexorably year after year.
I am sure that the Minister will argue that the contract offers a better deal for taxpayers. However, if 300 skilled engineers in Cambridge are forced on to the dole and must draw unemployment and other benefits paid for by the taxpayer, what kind of good deal is that? It is not a good deal for my constituents who want to feel that their skills are being utilised—as they have been for the past 13 years—in working for the national interest. It is not a good deal for the taxpayer, as the Exchequer loses about £9,000 a year for every unemployed worker. Not only has this country lost a deal that could represent as much as £40 million in exports every year, but we are worse off by a potential £2.7 million a year in increased social security benefits and lost tax revenue. What kind of crazy economics is that?
When Marshall took on the contract 13 years ago, it had to commit itself for 25 years. A local newspaper, "Cambridgeshire Today", reported:
This is a firm which has distinguished itself through generations of a family. In wartime it has played a major role in Britain's effort and in peace-time it has often shored up Cambridgeshire's economy, creating jobs for local people and enhancing the city's reputation in the local arena.
I heartily endorse those comments, and I feel sure that Baroness Thatcher would do so as well. She visited Marshall as Prime Minister on 27 May 1988. During her visit, she asked Sir Arthur Marshall how the company had built up such a versatile and sophisticated design team. He said that the company was fortunate to have been involved, in some form or another, in every British military and civil aircraft designed since the war—what an achievement.
Baroness Thatcher was particularly interested in the RAF TriStar tanker work, which was then in progress. Following her visit, she wrote a letter of appreciation, in which she added:
And of course, your work for the Falklands campaign will never be forgotten".
It is now clear that it has been forgotten. Marshall's loyalty to the British effort in war and in peace has not been reciprocated.
Marshall's expertise has also been recognised worldwide. In 1991, an employee visiting Canada noticed that the Air Transat house journal in Toronto contained an article, which said:
Marshall's proven track record with Royal Air Force tankers and transports has gained them the reputation as one of the world leaders in Tri-Star heavy maintenance.
Marshall has been mentioned on numerous other occasions when its outstanding record has been acknowledged. Much of Marshall's history is well documented in Sir Arthur Marshall's book, "The Marshall Story", which I highly recommend. It describes the marvellous history of the firm, its relationship with the RAF, and the unswerving loyalty and readiness to respond to national need that has characterised the company throughout its history.
The loss of the contract will not affect only Marshall. I received a letter today from Mr. Iain Sturrock of A. J. Walter Aviation, a firm based in Partridge Green in Sussex, which will have to consider laying off staff as a result of the loss of the contract. Mr. Sturrock says that the company is in favour of competition, but not at the expense of British workers' jobs and our international reputation. He highlights the fact that Marshall holds the design authority for converting the TriStar to freighter tankers and is best qualified to carry out the maintenance. He also makes the point—which is particularly pertinent to this debate—that sending our aircraft, with sensitive military systems, to a known politically volatile region of the world seems incomprehensible from a security standpoint. Many of my constituents will agree: this deal seems totally incomprehensible.
I have tried to discover through parliamentary questions whether any back-room deals have been done between our Government and the United Arab Emirates. I understand that the Secretary of State visited the UAE on 28 November last year and signed a defence co-operation accord between the two countries. Will the Minister explain what that means? If it means that we have agreed to defend the UAE in the event of future hostilities against that country, why on earth are we sending our jobs there as well? Was GAMCO awarded the contract as part of that defence co-operation accord?
Another suspicion is circulating that a deal has been done regarding orders for Hawk aircraft. My questions have managed to elicit information that the Indonesian Government have two outstanding contracts of 24 and 16 Hawk aircraft. There is a further outstanding contract with another country, but the Secretary of State declines to tell me which country. I understand that the conditions for keeping the information confidential are listed in the code of practice on access to government information, so I know that the Minister will decline to provide an answer tonight. However, the suspicions will not go away. My constituents believe it to be a shoddy deal, which does not benefit the RAF, the taxpayers or Cambridge. I hope that the Minister will come clean and tell us why the deal has been done.

Mr. Bill Walker: I assure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that Conservative Members also have a longstanding affection for Marshall of Cambridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-North wood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that he was worried about his grey hairs. I first came into contact with Marshall of Cambridge when I was a young flying officer—I will not tell the House when that was, but it was a long time ago. Later in life, I had the good fortune to meet and to work with Sir Arthur Marshall in a voluntary capacity. I have also worked with his son Michael, who is regional chairman of the Air Cadet Council. I doubt whether anyone will ever fully appreciate the time and the effort that he devotes to the air cadets. All that work—and all the work done before him by his father, Sir Arthur—cannot be measured financially. They gave very valuable trophies, which were awarded to the cadets, and they undertook many other interesting sponsorships. Marshall's has a very soft spot for the air cadets, and we love them very dearly.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their determination to proceed with Eurofighter. We need to realise that that project is about much more than merely providing jobs—important as those are. The Eurofighter is the aircraft that the Royal Air Force will need if it is to meet the type of demands that will be placed on it in the near future, over the next 30 to 40 years. Therefore, there should be no question about that aircraft's future. I will return to the issue of Eurofighter later in my speech.
I also congratulate my hon. Friends on placing orders for the anti-armour weapon, the conventional air-to-ground missile, the maritime patrol aircraft, the Nimrod 2000, the C130J aircraft, the EH 101 helicopter, and the extra Chinook helicopters. Those orders have given the RAF the encouragement that it desperately needed. Now, more than anything else, it needs a long period of stability, so that it can bring into service the new equipment and deal with the problems caused by the recent dramatic and fundamental changes. The last thing that the RAF needs is the threat or the probability of a defence review.
If the Opposition are serious about supporting our military, they should realise that, if there was once a need for a review, the need has long since passed. We do not need a defence review but a period of stability. A defence review would produce a further lengthy period of instability. It is unnecessary, and it can be motivated only by a desire to reduce defence expenditure.
In an earlier intervention in this debate, I mentioned an aircraft that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember: the TSR2. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) seemed to think that I should not have made an historical reference, although he himself drew attention to the very factors that killed off the TSR2—cost overruns and delays. Let us not forget that the media friends of the Labour party publicly attacked those overruns and delays, and said that the aircraft was too expensive. In case any Labour Members have forgotten, I remind them that a lady by the name of Mary Goldring was a leading light in killing off that aircraft.
The point that I am trying to make to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—whose integrity I do not doubt: and I have no qualms about saying that—


is that he should tell his colleagues that the danger to the TSR2, if there is any, originates among people who will harp away at cost overruns and delays. Their argument will be that the aircraft is too expensive and that we cannot afford it. If £60 million for the royal yacht is too expensive, just think what they will say about the £300 million figure that may or may not be the right figure for the Royal Air Force.
Opposition Front Benchers should constantly remind their Back Benchers of the facts, because they are not as sound on defence as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. He is sound on defence, and I am not afraid to say so. He should realise that the danger will not originate in his integrity and determination but in pressure from those who will want the money spent elsewhere. We do not have that problem on the Conservative Benches, because Conservative Members do not try to spend defence money on other items.

Mr. Spellar: Conservative Front Benchers do.

Mr. Walker: No; we have now reached a period in which we will try to maintain current levels of defence spending in real terms. If we are to maintain our commitments and the military capability that we think is necessary, it would not be viable to spend below that level.
I believe that the TSR2 would have accomplished for the RAF and British exports what the Eurofighter certainly will, because they are the same type of agile combat aircraft. It was sad that it suffered at the hands of the Labour party's media friends.
What about the future? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—who is not in the Chamber; he has probably gone to eat—I believe that the heavy lift problems cannot simply be put up on the shelf and forgotten. We need a heavy lift capability. One option is the future large aircraft—which I would call a "paper aeroplane". It may turn out to be a very good paper aeroplane, but, at this point, it is only an idea. The other option is the C17, which is a reality.
I want my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider those two options carefully. Although I believe that the need is urgent, and that we should deal with it soon to meet the RAF's requirements, I do not care which of the two aircraft we end up with. I admit that I should like to see the C17 in service, and as soon as possible, but I will not complain if we get the future large aircraft, because the RAF will have received what it needs: a heavy lift capability.
We must consider future offensive air systems, and long-range air-to-ground missiles capable of being launched from transport aircraft. We need systems for the Tornado GR4, such as the future medium-range air-to-air missile SR(A)1239. I should also draw attention to the FMRAAM Meteor. It is a compliant, cost-effective programme, embracing contributions from GEC Marconi, Alenia of Italy, Dasa of Germany, Matra Defence of France and Saab Dynamics of Sweden. That should satisfy the Europhobes in the House. I must, of course, put in a plug for Scotland. So I shall say that Hughes—which has a large, very modern plant in Glenrothes, Fife—also has an interest in the programme, which I hope will progress.
I should also like to mention the airborne stand-off radar, which is Ministry of Defence staff requirement (land/air) 925. I understand that Loral, which is now part of the Lockheed Martin group, has demonstrated its candidate—a Boeing 707 equipped with dual-mode radar linked to ground stations, which is transported to areas of disaster or combat in the C130J aircraft. They are the matters that we have to consider, now and in the future.
I join the many other hon. Members who have complimented the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Michael Graydon. He is soon to retire but has served longer in that job than is usual. He has seen the RAF through a very difficult period. I believe that he has provided leadership of a highest order in a period of change and of what, in modern terminology, is called downsizing. Enlargement is difficult but it provides opportunity and stimulus; to manage downsizing is an entirely different challenge. Sir Michael Graydon and the Air Force Board are to be congratulated on what they have achieved in a period of instability and downsizing. I am delighted that Sir Richard Johns is to be the next Chief of the Air Staff and am confident that he will provide the professional leadership necessary to build on that laid down by Sir Michael Graydon.
It will not surprise the Minister if I deal now with the auxiliaries, reserves and air cadets. I must declare an interest because I am involved. I welcome the news that the cadets, reserves and auxiliaries are to be expanded. The auxiliaries and reserves will become progressively more important and will contribute in many ways to the modern RAF's ability to meet the demands placed on it in this troubled and dangerous world.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, I remember when we were promised a helicopter squadron. It seems a long time ago, but it is now with us. We can only say to Ministers, "Thank you, you will never regret it."
Given that we have a much reduced Air Force and the need to build more into the reserves, politicians will face an even greater demand to create an environment in which employers appreciate their employees' need to have time off to meet their reserve commitments. I can say that with some feeling.
Many years ago I was offered a job as a managing director which, at that time, would have been a very important position and a superb opportunity for me. However, the offer came with a condition that I could not accept—I would have been required to resign my command of a volunteer unit. I could not do that even though I desperately wanted the job. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 will help, but much more still needs to be done. The Act alone will not create the right environment.
If we are to have an increasing civilian citizen component in our personnel, we need to widen the sponsored reserve element, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said. I think that any company tendering for RAF work must in future accept that its employees must be sponsored reserves, just as in the early 1950s all the employees of Airwork had to be members of the reserves. All future maintenance contracts must embrace—I use the word "must" deliberately—sponsored reserves. Only in that way will we begin to create an environment in which employers understand the importance of the reserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said, the only light blue uniforms that


will be seen in public in many parts of the country will, sadly, be those of the auxiliaries, the reserves and the cadets. It is important to bear that in mind.
I deal now with the expansion of the cadets, which I welcome. I was surprised to read about it in the press. I and others have been working on expansion ideas, and the challenge was to work out how it could be achieved. What would it call for? We realised that it would call for new money.
I had been chatting to various Departments to see whether they would be prepared to fork out the money, but my fishing did not produce many big fish. That did not deter me. Those of us who are keen to increase the cadet organisation know that the investment per cadet brings such a massive return—that is especially true of the air cadets—that I am surprised we even contemplated reducing cadet expenditure when the world has so many problems, including drugs.
We knew that, as well as new money, we needed innovative thinking and leadership action by people who understand the ethos and motivation of the adults who run the air training corps squadrons and who man the volunteer gliding schools, the air experience flights. Wings and the outdoor activity centres.
The recent changes brought about by defence cost studies and "Front Line First" have created pain and uncertainty among the volunteers. Many began to believe that the RAF and Ministers no longer fully supported the air cadets. I know from personal experience that that is not true—Ministers and the Air Force Board fully support the cadets.
In an intervention, I tried to bring to the Minister's attention the review of the Air Cadet Council. Obviously, I did it very badly because he did not understand what I was getting at—I take responsibility for not putting across my message sufficiently clearly. The review of the Air Cadet Council is an essential element in improving communications between the MOD and the people who man the squadrons, volunteer gliding schools and air experience flights. It works, as my right hon. Friend told me. I know that it works, but, like all things that work, it can be improved, which is the aim of the review.
The review was welcomed by the volunteers, but they were then told of a second review—the review of the cadet organisation itself, which is now under way. I thank the Chief of the Air Staff and the Air Member for Personnel for accepting the necessary element in that review, namely that we have someone in the team with first-hand experience of being a volunteer. I congratulate retired Wing Commander Jimmy Farrell, who was a wing commander of an air training corps wing and who has also commanded a volunteer gliding school in his time. I cannot think of anyone better to be part of the review team because he understands what is required. I therefore thank the Chief of the Air Staff, the Air Member for Personnel and Ministers for listening to us.
The review that is presently under way follows the substantial changes caused by the reduction in the air cadet budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said, the air cadets may not have been reviewed, but the adult volunteers thought that they had been reviewed. After all, the air cadets have lost a region and a hands-on air officer commanding—I opposed that at the time and I still believe it was wrong. It was a great advantage for the air cadets to have an AOC to whom everyone had access

and it meant a lot to the volunteers—the fellows in the blue uniforms. The loss of a hands-on AOC did as much as anything to make the volunteers think that the RAF and Ministers had lost interest in them. Such issues affect motivation.
Other problems include the move of the headquarters from Newton to Cranwell; the loss of a substantial element of air-experience flying; the loss of day-to-day command and control of the air-experience flights, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre mentioned; and the reduction in places available at summer camps. The volunteers saw all those actions as part of a substantial review of air cadet policy and activity. Consequently, it came as no surprise to me and others that the volunteers initially reacted adversely to the new review.
I place those facts on record not to moan, but to draw attention to the challenge that has to be faced if we are to turn hopes of expansion into reality. How can we make expansion a reality? We must first acknowledge the lessons of history. In the 1950s, conscription encouraged young boys to join the ATC and to remain members between the ages of 16 and 18 so that their period of service would be in the Royal Air Force. That experience has a message for us—that environment and attitudes are important. How can we, without conscription, create a climate of opinion about a citizens' military that would encourage boys and girls to join and to remain members of their local ATC squadron or Air Force section of the CCF? That is one of the challenges that we must face.
We should first examine how we can retain more boys and girls past the age of 16. If we keep more of them in the cadets when they reach 16, we will expand without having to add to the headquarters staff, the facilities or the instructors. If we can do that successfully, we could increase the present strength of the air cadets by some 30 to 40 per cent. without substantially increasing the overheads of the present air cadet units.
The reason why most youngsters join the cadets is the air element of their activities. Gliding and flying encourage them to stay. We must examine the availability of air-experience flying in gliders and aircraft and the opportunities for cadets to go solo, after training. First, we should consider the location of air-experience flights and the command and control of those flights. I suggest that that is included in the present review. We should also examine the success of the flying scholarship scheme—it is very successful—to see whether any lessons from that success can be applied to air-experience activity.
We should also ask the review team to examine the problems caused by the lack of suitable airfields for the volunteer gliding schools. Boys and girls who go solo in an air cadet glider are unlikely ever to steal cars for thrills. They have already overcome fear and have been risk-challenged. They get a pair of wings to wear on their uniforms and that makes them different. They do not have to prove anything to anybody else. Public money is well invested in such activities and the public get a massive return on their investment.
We must also ask the review team to examine the way that the ATC trains its future instructors and officers. The majority are ex-cadets, so we usually grow our own. With the reduction of the Regular Air Force, there may be opportunities for the older cadets, the auxiliaries and the reserves to become an integral part of every RAF station or unit. There is scope—just as was done with the


Home Guard in the 1940s—for local air stations to build up more direct contact with volunteer reserve training branch officers, who have volunteered and completed the volunteer reserve Cranwell course. They could be used as guard commanders and for other tasks on the station. They could be assisted in their tasks by the 18 to 20-year-old cadets. Just as during the second world war, the cadets could be given colour flashes to wear on their uniforms—air crew cadets wore white flashes during the war. The flashes would show that the wearer was different, which is important for motivation and gives youngsters something to aim for.
Such cadets would remain active in their cadet squadrons and would be the source of future officers for the squadrons and RAF base units. Over time—it could not be done immediately—the RAF could insist that all future recruits to the service must have been either cadets or members of the university air squadrons, the volunteer reserve or the auxiliaries. That would create an incentive that would keep the youngsters involved. Such a policy would help to create the citizens' Air Force that we need.
Other aspects that should be examined are the outdoor activity centres and the summer camp facilities. Expansion of those will be essential if we are to enlarge the cadets and keep them. The tragedy is that not every cadet can go to camp. In fact, every year fewer go to camp and that issue must be addressed.
In the reports in the press about cadet enlargement, the connection between cadets and schools caught public attention. I do not wish to comment on the possibility of a cadet unit in every secondary school. It would be more realistic to ensure that cadet squadrons have access to school facilities. Too many local education authorities refuse the cadets access because they wear a uniform. Playgrounds can be used for drill practice. For many years, I ran a cadet squadron in Dundee and we used school facilities for drill practice. We won the Scottish drill championship nine years out of 10. In later years, we could not get access to the school playground and the squadron's performance worsened because it had no drill facilities. We need practical ways to address the problems and central Government could insist that those public facilities were made available. That would contribute massively to any expansion of the air cadets.
In conclusion, those in the Front-Bench team have the right ideas and are doing the right things. We on the Back Benches will continue to give them our support. I accept that sometimes we may sound critical of them. That is not because we think that they are doing a bad job—we know that they are not—but because we care so deeply about the issues that we are promoting that sometimes we feel that it takes too long to get what we want. I am not alone in having spent a long time trying to persuade the Government about flying reserves. It would be churlish of us to complain, because we have now got what we wanted and we are delighted. The Front-Bench team has brought that about.
The Royal Air Force recognises the support given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am told that by all those in the Royal Air Force and the air cadets with whom I work. They should at least feel that they, like Sir Michael Graydon, have come through this extremely difficult period well. The future looks much better.

Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and support his comments about the Air Cadet Force and the concept of Army cadets and sea cadets. I hope that his enthusiasm is deeply infectious and that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take note. I know that they have already set in motion a plan to support the expansion of this admirable scheme.
I regret the recent decline of the cadets. There are several reasons for that—not just the lack of sufficient input and investment, but the lack of support for defence initiatives in schools, where I would like the scheme to expand. An anti-militaristic mood went through the teaching movement. That is not true of all teachers, but, regrettably, many dismissed the cadet movement as unnecessary to young people's lives. I am sorry about that, because many children were denied tremendous opportunities to learn about friendship, discipline, loyalty and the possibilities for a fine career in any one of the three forces.
I know the effects that being in the cadet forces had on some young people I know. I remember how much my son got out of the sea cadets. He joined as a boy and came out of it a man. He found himself pushed to do things that he never believed possible. Would it not be marvellous if young people, particularly those from inner cities who come from families that are stressed and riven by strife, had an opportunity to achieve things and go beyond what they thought possible? It would give them confidence that would help them to do better at school, and it might lead them to consider a career that they would otherwise never have thought of. In the long term, it would make up for our shortfall, particularly in the Army. I therefore welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside and the comments that have been made about the expansion of the air reserves. There is a wider debate to be had on that, which includes the naval and Army reserves.
I find it exciting to hear, as I did earlier from the Front Bench, that the skills of those who have had expensive pilot training in the Royal Air Force, come to the end of their careers and joined commercial airlines will still be available to us. We have seen the benefits of people coming back to the Territorial Army and regular service. They are accepted on equal terms with those who serve full time. I was recently in Bosnia with the parliamentary armed forces scheme, where I saw how well the Territorial Army has worked and has given a vibrancy to those who are regularly there and to those who join.
I turn now to ballistic missile defence—an important innovation. I remember going to the Pentagon some years ago, where I was given a tour by General James Abrahamson, head of the strategic defence initiative organisation. I learnt at first hand how science and technology could one day make it possible to intercept incoming missiles, even though it seems futuristic. Even 10 years ago, British companies were lending their research skills to that.
I would welcome our grasping the nettle and going one stage further. I accept that ballistic missile defence is a vastly expensive project with many unknowns, and that it will have to be organised internationally, but we should put research and development effort into it. The rewards


will undoubtedly come in the next century. That investment could save the free world from the ultimate disaster. I think that it is worth while.
During my year with the parliamentary armed forces scheme, although I was attached to the Army, I had considerable contact with the Royal Air Force. My last abiding memory of that experience is of flying in the belly of a Hercules aircraft to Split. Inside, it was a dark, noisy and hardly comfortable experience, as I propped myself up against some packaging. All I could do was follow the example of a service man, and doze off.
The record of Hercules aircraft flying to Bosnia is magnificent. They have transported more than 7,000 troops, more than 2,000 tonnes of freight and well over 500 vehicles. With hours and hours of flying in and out of Split, reliable and trusty, they were an essential part of our service. I was proud at the way in which everything worked so efficiently.
In Bosnia, I had the opportunity to fly over the mountains in a Sea King helicopter. I observed the Serbian trenches and the skeletal remains of towns and villages. In this country, I have flown in Hercules aircraft on various exercises. I remember slinking up and down the Welsh mountains and valleys, barely 250 ft above the ground, and swooping off to East Anglia on a four-hour journey to drop off paras for an exercise.
The hours of air force personnel may be long—sometimes intolerably so on long-haul flights—but the men and women never complained. They took pride in their work. I pay particular tribute to the women who have joined the air crews. They never draw attention to themselves and there are no gender differences in the cockpit. They are professionals who get on with their work. It is marvellous to hear of the success of Flight Lieutenant Helen Gardner, who has been performing at the sharp end of flying aircraft.

Mr. Soames: Good man.

Lady Olga Maitland: Quite right. She is a good man because a good woman is equal to a man and better.
The Royal Air Force has delivered excellence all over the world. It is respected for the quality of its work and its ability to be there—wherever it may be. As we approach the general election, it would be fair to ask just how certain we can be in future of continuing to deliver such a magnificent force at the same strength and properly equipped. As long as the Conservative party remains in charge, the country need have no fears. The defence of the nation is secure in our hands. Our armed forces are a vital part of Britain's standing in the world. They enforce our foreign policy initiatives and are respected for being world class—a class of their own.
I also have to issue a warning. The country should be alerted to Labour's plans for a strategic defence review, otherwise we would be failing ourselves. It would be wrong to allow an important idea to be floated and then submerged by the accusation, "You are just politicising the issue and taking us back to the nuclear election of 1983."
We have to examine Labour's plans and their consequences carefully. It could be a watershed. Nowadays, Labour tries to give the impression that it is the party of sound defence. Many of us read the article in The Daily Telegraph on Monday by the right

hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). [Interruption.] I took a rather cynical view of it. I could not believe that he promised a review of our armed forces to
reflect Britain's international interests and commitments.
He boldly announced that the armed forces were
a precious national asset to be treasured
and proceeded to offer the armed forces a period of stability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Frankly, I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman, and nor will anyone else, because of his track record of twisting and turning his views to suit every political occasion. [Interruption.]
During the nuclear debate, I recall going up north and debating against the right hon. Gentleman in Sedgefield. He argued vibrantly and enthusiastically for one-sided nuclear disarmament.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I do not expect a running commentary from the Labour Front Bench.

Lady Olga Maitland: The right hon. Gentleman wore his Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge with pride. I recall vividly that he pounded the table and punched the air with that messianic passion that we now see in respect of all sorts of other views. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned those ideas. He has seen the light. How can I believe that, when he has chopped and changed on every topic under the sun?
Once, the right hon. Gentleman had anti-European views; now, he is pro-European and does not want Britain to be isolated in Europe. He displays a new-found commitment to law and order, despite having opposed or abstained on every measure aimed at bringing order to our streets. The right hon. Gentleman twists and turns on education. He is in favour of grant-maintained status when it suits his family, but against it for the party.
How can anyone trust the right hon. Gentleman on defence? I would not trust him for a minute. Curiously, I cannot remember hearing any Labour Member calling for more money to be spent on defence. If Labour Members really meant what they said, they would go for it, but they have not.

Mr. Spellar: Is that a spending pledge?

Lady Olga Maitland: We are already committed to sound spending on defence.
In The Daily Telegraph on Monday, the leader of the Labour party raged about our policies to rationalise our modern armed forces in keeping with current demand, but what ideas did he offer? None. His views were negative. His only answer was to promise our armed forces a defence review and the clear threat of deep cuts to our funding, sacrificing among other sectors great swathes of the RAF by stating
we must stick to the tough spending limits Gordon Brown has proposed.
So that is how the right hon. Gentleman plans to get away with it.
We should bear it in mind that the Leader of the Opposition has a long list of IOUs to pay off. No doubt the public sector will be first in the queue. In one way or another, the right hon. Gentleman has promised or pledged £30 billion.
It is not surprising that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) confirmed our worst fears on the "Today" programme recently. When he was asked directly to deny that Labour would obviously cut defence, he ignored the question and hurried on. We can draw our own conclusions from that. There was no denial, so presumably Labour would cut defence.
I would like to hear more from the Opposition what they would do for defence. Let us go a little further, if the House has any doubts, and recall the comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in an interview in The New Statesman in November 1993. He said:
we do not need to spend as much on defence.
Only a few weeks ago, in the debate on the Loyal Address, he said:
It is only by having a strategic defence review, with the painful consequences, that that problem can be addressed."—[Official Report, 24 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 215.]
In truth, defence is a soft touch for the Labour party, which has never had any taste for being robust. Many Labour Members want an easy option. They would like our armed forces to be reduced to a peacekeeping gendarmerie, zipping across the globe on the many missions much favoured by smaller and less significant nations. Labour is racked with bitter disputes about demands to cut spending, scrap nuclear weapons and ban defence exports. It is a rare Labour soul who will be positive and say, "Let's go for it."
Let us look at the lessons of history. The fact that Labour Governments usually cut defence has been mentioned. I remember the fiasco of Labour cancelling the TSR2 at a cost of hundreds of jobs. If Labour Members think that we will forget that and that it will go way, they are wrong. It will haunt them because we will not allow the country to forget that Labour cannot be reliable.
Let us consider the effects of a defence review on jobs. The immediate result would be a freeze on new procurement, defence orders or equipment until the review was concluded. Bearing in mind the long lead-in time from decision-making to handing over a weapons system, the armed forces would be operating in an antiquated vacuum. To put it metaphorically, it would be a matter of going back to pitchforks.
What would Labour be likely to axe? How many jobs would be put at stake by its proposed review? We should be told now, before the election, so that sober judgments can be made. Labour Members claim that they are still committed to the Eurofighter. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said passionately earlier in the debate that he had made that commitment on television. Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was sincere, I also believe that he operates alone and will not be able to convince his colleagues, let alone the sisters, who will have quite different ideas.
I find it strange that Labour has promised to keep the Eurofighter. That promise sits uneasily with Labour's queasiness about spending £60 million on the replacement for the Britannia. When we press Labour Members, they always fudge. We have never received a clear message about whether the Eurofighter would be included in the

review or whether Labour would stick to 232—the number to which we have committed ourselves. The truth is that the Eurofighter order will wither away and the under Labour.
We have to consider other issues. I believe that there will be redundancy notices at Rolls-Royce with the cuts in the replacement of maritime patrol aircraft. I can see a threat to the Apache attack helicopter, and the EH101 at Westland, and restrictions on the sale of the Hawk overseas. No sales; no production; no jobs; the dole. It is a very bleak picture. Is the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East really going to savage the workers of British Aerospace by cutting the Nimrod 2000 at Prestwick?
Throughout the land, 360,000 jobs depend on defence sales. They are found not only in the big name contractors, but in hundreds of small companies that make thousands of basic components such as valves, fuel systems and microchips. The Labour party is of course against defence sales.

Mr. Spellar: Rubbish.

Lady Olga Maitland: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 422, on the
Sale of Armoured Vehicles to Indonesia
which condemns such sales, and has been signed by 59 Opposition Members. It declares:
That this House condemns the decision by Her Majesty's Government to issue export licences for the export to Indonesia of 50 Alvis armoured vehicles, as well as a variety of police vehicles".
That is negative and will kill jobs.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do I understand from the approach that the hon. Lady has adopted in the past moment or two that, so far as she is concerned, the United Kingdom should sell arms to anyone who is willing to buy them? Should we not have some regard to the history of human rights in some of the countries to which we sell arms, and not bear in mind our experience of selling arms to Saddam Hussein?

Lady Olga Maitland: We have a very clear policy on arms sales abroad: they are for defence and for friendly nations. We will not sell to a country that will use arms for an improper purpose. It is suggested that it is somehow improper to sell police vehicles to Indonesia. Such a policy would kill jobs—and that would be on the Labour party's conscience.
In the south-east, almost 40,000 people are employed in jobs that depend on Government defence programmes. How will Labour explain its policy to the 380 people who work for United Electronics in Greenford which makes anti-submarine warfare electronic systems, among other projects? Will it say that it is sorry, but it is going to have to ransack their jobs for false ideology? What about Racal Electronics, which employs 750 workers in defence-related jobs? They will not be too happy about the cuts. It would be a cruel trick to hit West-Air, which employs 45 people.
All those companies are naturally concerned about long-term commitment, as they put much of their resources into research and development as well as manufacturing. More important, the export orders that they receive are an extremely good earner for Britain. The development of leading edge technology reinforces


Britain's position as a world leader, which in turn secures our position on the world stage and, indeed, the UN Security Council. The Labour party will have to face the fact that its defence policies will be a minefield of problems that will blow up in its face. We scrap an aircraft carrier at our peril. It would take 15 years or more to replace it, and I doubt that the world outside would be benign enough to wait.
I can imagine, for example, during the strategic defence review, the Labour party calling for its defence academics who, from the comfort of their armchairs, will advise it to trim this and cut that, with the result that resources for training will be virtually non-existent. Without training, we cannot perform. The mantra would be that our armed forces were no longer large enough to fight a serious war alone—so why should so many capabilities be kept; why should we not share more roles with our allies, leaving spare cash for pet projects in the social services?
I can see a Labour argument developing into, "Why not make tanks redundant, like battleships, since a major land war in Europe is less likely to be fought? And while you are about it, why not bring the Army home from Germany?" The result would be a drastic pruning of regiments, a slashed Air Force, which would have less to protect, and a decimated Navy. Many Labour defence analysts believe that 35 frigates and destroyers is overkill, and prefer to cut the number by 25 per cent.
Labour could conclude that nuclear-powered attack submarines, whose task is to protect Trident, could be phased out and not replaced. Some argue that there is no merit in maintaining an ability to wage amphibious warfare—in other words, mounting an opposed landing from the sea—so out would go the two new amphibious landing platforms that have just been ordered. There are many who see no military purpose in the Territorial Army, so out that would go. The debate will rage. Backed by one of its gurus, Bradford university's Malcolm Chalmers, who says that Britain could and should spend substantially less on defence, Labour will plough on suggesting that we are exaggerating our role in the world.
As it is, 20 Labour Members of Parliament tabled an amendment to the defence estimates, calling on the Government to cut spending on defence to the European average—totally ignoring our responsibilities. At the Labour party conference, seven resolutions or amendments were tabled for the scrapping of Trident. About £4 billion at least is at stake—but it could be much more. That figure alone would wipe out the entire RAF or the Navy. The generals, air marshals and admirals would all be up in arms; the soldiers, sailors and airmen would be in despair; there would be deep demoralisation; and workers in the defence industry would become desperate as their numbers piled up on the dole.
Above all, the great British public will tear with unprecedented ferocity into Labour as they see our great traditions in defending ourselves honourably and playing a key role in the world disappear. The Labour leadership, preoccupied with spin doctors and many spending pledges to fulfil—and the desire to win the general election—does not regard defence as a high priority. It certainly does not recognise what a minefield the proposed review will be. We have a duty to unmask that review, because it will certainly mean less for defence and less security for our country. I for one would never trust Labour with defence, and I do not believe that the electorate will either.

Dr. John Reid: I am struggling for a word to describe that speech—breathtaking, I think, especially the biblical Gotterdammerung that was conjured up in the event of a Labour Government. I suppose that it was, however, an indication that "Care in the Community" sometimes can work. "Wired to the moon" is probably the only expression that comes to mind.
I would not mind so much about the people who roar like lions about defence from those green Benches, had they not sat meek as lambs over the past 10 years while we have seen a 27 per cent. cut from the defence budget in real terms. I would not mind the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and her hon. Friends referring to the distant prospect of a decimated Air Force, a slashing of the number of regiments, and reductions in the Navy, if that were not precisely the definition of what the Government have done for the past 10 years.
I would not mind lectures on the need to retain stability in the armed forces, were it not for the fact that over the past 10 years under the Conservative Government, there has been a desert of chaos, after which the prospect of two or three years when the defence budget remained as planned—that is what we have pledged—would be an oasis of stability.
I have been provoked into responding to an individual speech, but now I shall return to my original text and join in a brief moment of consensus with the tributes paid to Sir Frank Whittle, welcome Brigadier Richard Holmes to his new post and pay a formal, if early, farewell to Sir Michael Graydon, who has served the Royal Air Force well, and often proved a perceptive observer of political personalities and events We wish him well in the future.
At the opening of the debate, we were treated to the normal stentorian delivery of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who, as usual, appeared before us as a family-size Richard Todd, taking us through the tributes to the armed forces. As has been said, he managed to avoid subjects that could have arisen during the Navy debate had it taken place in the normal way—subjects such as the royal yacht, which I shall not pursue now—or in the Army debate, such as its dramatic under-strength, and the failure to bring the Army up to establishment levels.
However, I fully endorse the Minister's initial comments about air power. The speed, flexibility and reach that he described were amply illustrated during the opening session of the Gulf war. There we saw the utility of air power—the destruction of Saddam's command, control and communications, the prevention of Iraqi control of the air, the damage inflicted on the Iraqi troops through bombing attrition, and the destruction of the morale of the enemy, which is one of the elementary aspects of any impending victory.
I shall refer briefly as I go along to the contributions by other hon. Members. I have listened to many speeches by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), but today his speech was witty, moving in parts, informed and incisive. If I single him out, it is because tonight he has something to celebrate. I congratulate him on the fact that after 26 and a half years' campaigning, he has secured the flying reserves.
That reminds me of the old story about the militant Liberal activists who go on to the street screaming, "What do we want?"—"Gradual change." "When do we want it?"—"In due course." The hon. Gentleman has certainly achieved that. In this case, Ministers have fully observed the strictures of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) to the effect that we do not want anything to happen too suddenly, and that gradual change is always better.
While we are talking about air power, which both the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood and the Minister mentioned, I shall mention in passing the report by the General Accounting Office of the United States into the comparative utility of modern technology as opposed to traditional methods of bombing and air power.
I know that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who takes an interest in such matters, will be aware of that report which, although it may be only a superficial, initial report, seems to illustrate the fact that in difficult conditions, such as those affected by weather, and when it is hard to assess battle damage and so on, some of the more traditional platforms are every bit as effective as extremely expensive new technology. That idea is worth examining more closely.
I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the professionalism of our Royal Air Force. That was exhibited during the Gulf war, and the testimony of that exercise was to the value of air power. The Minister, of course, mentioned the Balkans, where with both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, the Royal Air Force has been assisting IFOR and SFOR; the middle east, where it acts as the eyes, and if necessary the claws, of the United Nations over Iraq; and the Falklands garrison, which operates mainly out of Mount Pleasant.
That service is performed not only in defence of our country. The Minister and several other hon. Members have mentioned the utility of our armed forces to the civilian population in times of emergency, especially, although not exclusively, through search and rescue. We identify ourselves with those comments.
We very much support the progress of co-operation and co-ordinated activity with our allies—particularly the French—to which the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred. We identify with the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the progress that he would like to see in common procurement and interoperability. We would welcome that, but there should be no question of political decisions being taken during such co-operation on any other basis than an intergovernmental one, and there must be no question of acceding to those who would seek to place our troops, or those of the Western European Union, under the control of a European Commissioner or a European majority voting system.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, is learned on military matters, and he made an extremely wide-ranging speech on global geo-politics, which I shall not attempt to encapsulate in my brief summing up. He asked about the shortage of spares following the Government cuts, and sought assurances on that matter. I hope that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will respond to him, either tonight or in

writing. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside also pointed out the detrimental effect that overstretch can have on morale—a point that hon. Members have been making in the House for a decade.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside also mentioned the effect of cuts in the defence medical services, and referred in particular to the danger to the service men and women who are isolated in national health service wards and who may be in an environment that does not encourage the ethos of the armed services as the medical services previously did—a point raised also by the hon. Member for Wyre.
The dangers of undermining the ethos of the armed services need to be pointed out. Most hon. Members would agree that the ethos of the armed forces is sometimes misunderstood outside the House, and is almost always underestimated. It is one of those items that is difficult to quantify in the ledgers of cost accountancy or to measure in terms of operational effectiveness. However, I have never spoken to anyone in our armed forces who does not believe that in an emergency—when the armed forces are asked to kill the enemy or to defeat its will—the ethos of the British armed forces takes an almost concrete form. We must look at the long-term effect that contractorisation, privatisation and cuts could have on the martial ethos of the British armed forces. If we undermine that ethos, we may find that we pay a heavy price in operational effectiveness for short-term savings.
A number of hon. Members referred to the defence industry. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside commented that if we are to remain a major player in the world market and provide back-up for the skills of the RAF, we need to encourage innovation and development. That is why we welcome the technology foresight programme, and we are enormously encouraged by the active campaign mounted in support of it by the Society of British Aerospace Companies.
A number of rather nervous Conservative Members raised what they insist on calling a defence review, but what we have always referred to as a strategic security review—which I know is a more complex subject, and is therefore more difficult for the Conservatives to grasp. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam went half way by calling it a strategic defence review, so progress is being made. We have made it plain that the review is not a cover for cuts.
The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), was attacked by the Conservative party last week for saying that departmental budgets will stay the same under the next Labour Government for at least two years. I do not think that Conservative Members can attack him last week for saying that we shall have stability, and then attack him again tonight for saying—supposedly—that we shall change the budgets. I make this simple point to some of the Tory lions who have been roaring tonight, but who have been as quiet as mice while their Front-Bench colleagues have slashed defence expenditure: two years of maintaining the plans as currently set out for defence expenditure would be an oasis of stability in the desert of financial chaos created by the Government.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had said in his article in The Daily Telegraph that the security review was to give stability. She will forgive me if I say that she only half-quoted. I know the phrase by heart:


a period of stability and reflection".
The stability comes from two years' maintenance of finance and budgets; the reflection comes from forward planning and the need to have a long-term strategic assessment of our aims five, 10 or 15 years down the road, exactly as we would have for any individual item of expenditure in the defence budget; and from interleaving foreign affairs with defence—after all, defence is the daughter of foreign affairs—and with the industrial dimension.
That is important because, as several hon. Members have said, if we do not have an industrial strategic dimension to our defence planning, we shall end up merely transferring costs to the welfare budget or losing out in science, technology, unemployment and so on. In other words, we hope that we have the capacity to institutionalise strategic thought at the centre of the Ministry of Defence, as that has not been too evident to date.
The question of Eurofighter has been raised repeatedly. I understand that an election campaign is under way and that it may seem convenient to try to gain a few votes in seats that are considered strategic, by bringing the debate down to a party political level and attempting dishonestly to portray the Labour party as being opposed to Eurofighter.
I merely ask every Conservative Member to consider whether it is in the national interest, when there has been a united front on the issue for six years, to allow the untrue story to go abroad in the next two months, in the immediate run-up to the decision in the Bundestag, that the United Kingdom parties are divided on Eurofighter. If the German Opposition can put about a credible story that the next Labour Government oppose Eurofighter, Conservative Members will have done their country no service.
We are committed to the programme as it stands. We shall order Eurofighter, provided always—these provisos apply to the Government as well; there is no blank cheque for the Germans—that there is a continuing agreement on work share, numbers and financial arrangements that is acceptable to the British Government and British industry.
On numbers, we are committed to the programme as it stands. I cannot be clearer than that. If any Conservative Member thinks that, lowly though my position is, I would be stupid enough to repeat the words that I have said tonight and to say what I have said today and last week, without discussing the matter with my Treasury team and my leader, they are either naive or believe that I have a death wish as regards my future career. I cannot make the position any clearer. I hope that from now on the issue will not be used as a party political tool to the detriment of our country.
We have long expressed our support for the staff college and for the moves towards more joint service activity and operations, which were mentioned by various hon. Members. I was able, courtesy of the Minister, to visit the joint permanent headquarters at Northwood, and was greatly impressed by the progress being made in that direction. That is the context in which we have supported, and continue to support, the concept of a joint staff college.
However, even his best friends would agree that the Minister, or whoever is dealing with the matter, has not handled it in the most coherent fashion, to say the least.

In some ways, it has been spectacularly mishandled; the college has had more venues at different stages than the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not know the full details of the latest proposal, but assuming that they remain the same until the general election, we shall continue to support the concept of the joint staff college. However, obviously, we shall want to look closely at the details. Anyone seeking power would be expected to say that, because there would have to be a good argument to throw aside the inherited traditions not only of Greenwich but of Camberley and Bracknell, particularly as the latter two are only five or six miles apart. It is possible, as many universities have shown, to run a joint course on a split site. We shall consider such arguments if the electorate entrust us with power.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) mentioned the cadet forces, as did the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, whom I congratulate, because last year she did a bit of flying herself. At any rate, she flew downwards with the Parachute Regiment with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We value the work of the cadet forces. The hon. Member for North Tayside has continually advocated their value. I have been fortunate to spend some time with them and I in no way underestimate the value for young people of all social backgrounds of experience with the cadets. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that such experience could help kids from deprived backgrounds, not people who have committed offences, but people at risk, who have perhaps never had the chance to see outside the inner cities. Kids who have never had confidence instilled in them may be able to show their leadership potential and so on. There is vast room and potential utility for cadet forces to contribute to the social well-being of many such kids.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that the Air Training Corps is carrying out pilot schemes with youngsters at risk. It is not taking people who have committed offences but is taking youngsters whom social work departments deem to be at risk.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I was aware of that. The Army has also done it. I have spent two weekends on such schemes and I was deeply impressed.
I was surprised by the peremptory nature of the story that appeared in various newspapers. I know that this was nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence. It certainly was not a leak. It was merely a coincidence that when the story appeared, the Secretary of State for Defence happened to be out with the cadets, and press photographers were there. No costings were attached. The story did not distinguish between the sea cadets and the other two cadet forces. The sea cadets are funded by local government, not the MOD; their funding has been slashed for the past 10 years. There was a hint of compulsion and it was all to be done through schools. None of those factors is helpful to those who want to operate through an extension of the existing cadet scheme. I hope that the manner in which the story was put out and the flaws in the argument do not kill off expansion for the Government who will take over after the general election.
I must deal briefly deal with the aberration of the last five minutes of the Minister's speech. I cannot believe that it was his own work. It was out of character for him


to launch a vicious attack on the Opposition. I can suppose only that he was instructed to read it by some central office spin doctor. Does he honestly think that anyone will believe his promise of stability in finance and manpower this time round? Does he think that everyone has already forgotten that the Government have cut defence expenditure by 31 per cent. in real terms, or that RAF personnel have been cut by 38 per cent. since the Prime Minister came to power?
When the Minister says that the Labour party in government cannot be trusted with the ethos of the armed forces, does he think that people have forgotten that service men and women's houses have been sold off to the Japanese or that the Royal Naval college was to be sold to the highest bidder? When he talks about the administration of the future of our armed forces being in danger, can he not recall—as even his colleagues would politely admit—that the past 10 years have in large part consisted of incoherence in strategy, instability in structures and, in some ways, incompetence in finance? Certainly, on occasion, there has been indifference to some personnel matters such as morale and overstretch.
The Labour party does not claim that it would get everything right, but the Conservative party's persistent claim that it is the only patriotic party and the only party capable of defending this country has a rather hollow ring in the country, because no one believes that the defence budget, for instance, is any safer in the Conservative Government's hands than the national health service budget. The resonance of the comments that have been made tonight will be regarded as neither effective politically nor useful for the future of our forces.
The people who have to suffer from instability and incoherence are those in the RAF. The 1990s have not been an easy period for any of our forces. The Government have struggled with the great changes—they have been difficult changes—of the previous decade and, all too often, the armed forces have been asked to bear the burden of the Government's inadequacies, or perhaps the inadequacies of the House, in coming to terms with those great changes. The forces have, as ever, borne that burden with a fortitude bordering on the miraculous. They have displayed the professionalism and dedication that everyone in the House has come to expect of them. They have borne the burdens that they have been asked to bear, as well as the increasing commitments and diminishing resources, with determination and commitment. They have stood sentinel in the defence of their country, but they have also served in the interests of the wider world through NATO and the United Nations.
Whatever our differences in the House, we are united in our respect, gratitude and admiration for the men and women who so selflessly serve our country. They deserve the respect and thanks of all of us, and I am sure that they have it from all of us.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): First, I echo the words of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), in thanking Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon for a long and extremely distinguished

contribution to the Royal Air Force and to the defence of his country. I am sure that the whole House will wish his successor well when he takes up his post.
A number of important points have been made during this debate on both sides of the House. I cannot answer all of them, but my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces or I shall write to those hon. Members whose points we cannot cover.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, in a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech, and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), asked about TACEVALs. To reduce the burden on units until April 1997, the Chief of Air Staff directed that tactical and operational evaluations were to be postponed and formal inspections and staff visits scaled down. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman that temporarily postponing those evaluations will not prejudice the RAF's NATO role, nor its operational capability. NATO is currently undertaking a complete review of the TACEVAL-OPEVAL system and it is intended to resume evaluation of RAF units in line with the new NATO guidelines later this year.
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee asked about spares and fleet serviceability figures. Again, I reassure him that corrective measures are in hand and some have already begun to feed through to the serviceability of aircraft, although it must be said that some have not yet fed through. We expect the figures over the next six months to show a marked improvement.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made a moving speech about the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident, a tragedy that saddens us all. I cannot deal in this speech with the details that he raised. The RAF's investigation was scrupulous. It found no evidence of structural or technical malfunction, nor of hostile action. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman asked some important questions and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to him to answer those questions.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) spoke about her constituency—

Mr. O'Neill: Before the Minister goes on, I have to tell him that that was a most disappointing response. I got in touch with his office yesterday and sent him a fax detailing the points I was going to raise today; I did so with the express purpose of getting the Minister to respond to those points today. I think that 16 to 24 hours' notice of points to be raised is more than enough to allow any Government Department to deal with them. I took the trouble to do that because I did not want to be palmed off in the way that I have been this evening. That is not a fair way to treat the House or to deal with a matter of such gravity in a debate of this kind, which represents one of the few opportunities that Back Benchers have to raise issues of this nature.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reacted in that way. The reason why I am treating his important comments in the way that I am is that, while it has been possible to produce a complete and detailed answer to the points that he raises, it would not provide a balanced winding-up speech for this debate to spend the 20 minutes or more that would be needed to cover the whole of the Chinook accident. I have details about which


my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Gentleman, who will be able to make those details public in whatever way he wishes. It was important that the hon. Gentleman should have made his speech, because I know that he felt strongly that the families of those who were held to blame for that crash had not had their points put on the record and he has had the opportunity to do that. It is, however, right to deal with the details in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. O'Neill: I do not want to take up the Minister's time and I understand his point, but he will understand my frustration. All I would say is that I take his point and I would hope that, at the appropriate time and after I have received his response, I shall be able to bring the relatives to meet the Minister for the Armed Forces to discuss the matter. I should like to think that will be possible and that the Minister's response to me will be put in the Library and be available for anyone else to read.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I see no reason why the response should not be put in the Library. As for a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, that is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will wish to raise with my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Cambridge spoke about her constituency interest in the Tristar maintenance contract. As she knows, the Government are committed to a policy of international competitive bidding. That has two effects: first, it provides value for money for the taxpayer; and secondly, it prompts British industry to become very competitive. As a result of that competitiveness, British industry is doing very well, not only by taking over 90 per cent. of British defence orders by putting in the best bids, but by taking 25 per cent. of the entire world's defence trade last year—up from 19 per cent. in 1995, which figure was up from 16 per cent. in 1994. That is a remarkable achievement. It is obvious that our defence sector is extremely healthy—second only to that of the United States and supporting 360,000 jobs.
On the occasion that we are talking about, Marshall put in one bid that was competitive and one bid that was not. The hon. Lady does her constituents no service by suggesting that Marshall is going to collapse as a result of GAMCO putting in a better bid. Marshall will continue to act as the conversion design authority for RAF Tristars, unless the hon. Lady insists on talking the company out of the job.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree, however, that in putting Marshall of Cambridge in direct competition with a firm such as GAMCO he is driving down quality and wages in a way that we would find totally unacceptable in this country?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I do not agree with that. We expect to get very high quality out of the bid that we have accepted.
The Government's commitment to air power and its importance to the defence of the United Kingdom's interests at home and abroad is clear. The Royal Air Force is better equipped now than at any time in its history. It has experienced, and will continue to experience, no less than a technological revolution, which affects the whole spectrum of Air Force capabilities. That is not

merely a re-equipment exercise, it is a step change in equipment capabilities, which reflects the needs of the RAF in the 21st century.
That step change has required us to create a highly efficient, streamlined support structure, and to bear down on headquarters costs. It has entailed challenging the ways in which we previously worked and has meant being open to ideas from inside and outside the traditional defence organisation.
We must never forget that the RAF's most valuable asset is its personnel. This has been a period of dramatic change for the RAF and we recognise the challenges that have had to be confronted during the manpower drawdown—a matter which was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The measures that we have taken to reorganise the RAF personnel management and training structure mean that our air men and women are the best trained and motivated Air Force in the world. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced last week the formation of the RAF personnel management agency, which will ensure that we invest properly in the careers of our officers and non-commissioned personnel.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) for his constant support for the reserves, the auxiliaries and the cadets—a support based on his long knowledge of, and involvement in, the RAF. His contribution tonight was especially constructive.
Maintaining morale involves, not only good career management, but ensuring that personnel are fully supported and able to perform their vital tasks. In the RAF, especially, investment in equipment is vital if our military capabilities are to be effective in future. Such investment also has a large positive impact on morale, as the welcome given by the RAF and other services to recent orders has demonstrated. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) in a telling speech, as the House would expect from someone with his experience.
To review the operational activities of the Air Force since the last debate is to realise the importance of such investment. Since June 1996, the Air Force has continued to be involved in operations world wide. In the former Yugoslavia, the RAF has provided air support to the NATO stability force with the Harrier and, as we heard tonight, has even flown my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has taken such a close and effective interest in our armed forces for a considerable time. In former Yugoslavia, the Jaguar fleet, aircraft from which are taking over the SFOR support role this week, is part of the way through an extensive upgrade programme to improve mission avionics and to provide a laser designation capability to deliver precision guided munitions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned the valuable contribution of the support helicopter force to operations in the region and elsewhere. When the RAF's additional Chinooks and new EH101s enter service from this year and 1999 respectively, the lift capabilities of the helicopter fleet will be greatly enhanced.
In the middle east, our support to UN operations is demonstrated by our Tornado GR1s based at Incirlik and A1 Kharj. The capabilities of the Tornado ground attack force are being massively upgraded by the mid-life update


programme. That will entail 142 aircraft being provided with improved avionics, navigation and other systems which will enable the aircraft to seek out its targets more effectively, as well as improving the Tornado's self-defence capabilities. The first squadrons of GR4s will start to form next year.
Investment in equipment will also enhance our forces stationed in the permanent garrisons. In the Falklands, airborne air defence is performed by Tornado F3s. I announced last March that the F3s are to be upgraded to enable them to carry advanced short and medium-range air-to-air missiles. A contract for that work was signed in November with British Aerospace Warton. That is one of the enhancements that we have introduced, which would presumably be put at risk by the strategic defence review—for the first time this evening, I heard it referred to as a strategic security review—proposed by the Opposition. Or are the Opposition prepared to say that that enhancement would not be included in such a review? The recently introduced field standard C variant of the Rapier surface-to-air missiles are manned by the RAF Regiment from Mount Pleasant airfield.
Our support to the Falklands, and our other garrisons and other operations around the globe, will also be enhanced when the 25 C-130J Hercules II transport aircraft enter service next year. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said about the C-130J. As regards his point about the C-17, clearly we must listen carefully to what he says. We are closely examining our future requirements for strategic and tactical airlift to support our deployments.

Mr. Wilkinson: There will still be immense pressures on the defence budget and a critical need for new equipment, such as a future medium-range air-to-air missile, the ASTOR, and ultimately ballistic missile defence. In those circumstances, is it not much more cost-effective to buy a proven aircraft, the C-17, which has shown itself to fulfil the role admirably, probably two or three times better than a future large aircraft ever could, than to invest development and production money in a new aircraft that is only marginally better than the C-130J? Airbus can build a new aircraft—a Jumbo equivalent, the 3XX, for example—but we should not put money in a multinational programme when a proven aircraft already exists and is in service with the US air force.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He makes an extremely important point, but several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are interested in the future large aircraft programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre raised the matter, as he has done on several occasions. I know that he takes a close interest in it.
We continue to work with partner nations on the future large aircraft with a view to rejoining the programme, ensuring first that a number of conditions are met. Broadly, those are that the programme should be commercially managed under the Airbus umbrella; that our price and productions requirements are met; and that resources are available for the programme. Into that calculation must go the point that my hon. Friend tellingly makes.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to provide our heavy lift requirements, we must analyse the different

options open to us, and decide on the basis of value for money which is the best aircraft, and that at this stage, without that analysis first being carried out, we should not prefer any specific aircraft?

Mr. Arbuthnot: We must, of course, make our decisions very carefully indeed. We must make such calculations. We are making good progress in evaluating the options available to us, but there is more work to be done before all the conditions are satisfied. We will make an announcement once a decision has been taken. The mini-debate that there has just been among my hon. Friends shows how difficult that decision will be.
Equipment programmes are in place across the spectrum of RAF capabilities. Many of them are collaborative, and in that context I wholly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I have mentioned the Harrier, which is built by British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas, and the EH101 from GKN Westland and Agusta of Italy. Such collaboration offers the chance to transfer technological skills and to share the risk and costs of development. We shall continue to seek opportunities for collaboration where it is practicable to do that, both within Europe and across the Atlantic.
Shortly after the previous RAF debate we announced the outcome of three major equipment programmes. The RAF's maritime fleet plays a vital role in seeking out enemy submarines and surface vessels. Therefore, it plays a key role in support of the nuclear deterrent. It also contributes significantly to our ability safely to deploy and sustain our contingency forces, including the joint rapid deployment force, as well as carrying out routine maritime surveillance and search and rescue tasks.
In addition to their operations in the north Atlantic, Nimrod aircraft played vital roles in the Gulf conflict and more recently in the Adriatic in support of operations in Bosnia. The existing maritime patrol fleet of Nimrod MR2 aircraft has been in service for a quarter of a century and the aircraft are nearing the end of their life. Therefore we decided, following competition, to buy 21 Nimrod 2000 aircraft from British Aerospace.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I should say that the Nimrod 2000 will, in effect, be a new aircraft with the most modern mission systems of their type in the world. It is a British solution, and it was selected because it was the most cost-effective way to meet our forces' requirements. A contract was signed in December. As prime contractor, British Aerospace is wholly responsible for systems integration and for the airframe. Rolls-Royce will supply the engines and Racal will supply the radar. Key elements of the mission system, which is crucial to the effectiveness of maritime patrol operations, will be provided through a strategic partnership between GEC and Boeing. In all, more than 200 companies throughout the UK will benefit from the decision, sustaining some 2,600 jobs.
The RAF is rightly keen to take delivery of the new aircraft as soon as possible and delivery will start in 2001. The Nimrod 2000 will be in service for at least 25 years, but it too would be at risk from a Labour strategic security review, or would Labour exempt it from the review?

Dr. Reid: We are not joining in the game of exempting from reviews. The Army will be in the review, but we do


not propose to close down the Army. If the contract has been signed we shall honour it, as any responsible Government would do.

Mr. Arbuthnot: At least that is a helpful start.
At the time of our announcement on Nimrod 2000, we announced two major decisions on air-to-surface weapon systems which will greatly enhance the RAF's counter-air and offensive support capabilities. Matra-British Aerospace's air-launched cruise missile, Storm Shadow, was selected to meet our requirement for a stand-off weapon for the precision attack of high-value infrastructure targets. The Gulf conflict demonstrated the value of that capability, which will be of the utmost importance in future operations, including high-intensity conflict.
Storm Shadow will enter service in 2001, and will be carried by Tornado GR4, Harrier and Eurofighter aircraft. The total procurement cost of this order is about £800 million, and at its peak it will sustain about 1,600 jobs in the United Kingdom. We also announced that we would buy Brimstone anti-armour weapons from GEC-Marconi. A contract was signed in November. Brimstone will replace the RAF's current stock of BL755 cluster bombs, which are becoming less effective against modern armoured threats and which require overflight of the target, putting the launch aircraft at risk. When it enters service in 2001, Brimstone, which will be carried by Tornado, Harrier and Eurofighter aircraft, will provide a vital capability, complementing the Army's attack helicopter force. At its peak about 700 British jobs will be sustained by this order, the total procurement cost of which is about £700 million.
Those two highly sophisticated systems will also be key air-to-ground weapons for Eurofighter, which remains our No. 1 procurement priority. In September, we announced that we were ready, in principle, to proceed with the production investment, production, and support phases of the Eurofighter programme. We hope to be able to sign the appropriate contracts in the next couple of months. In terms of employment, the some 6,000 jobs sustained by the development programme are expected to increase to 14,000 when Eurofighter production is at its peak.
Meanwhile, the aircraft's flight test programme is going well, and five development aircraft are now flying. The first twin-seat aircraft, DA6, made its maiden flight on 31 August and its public debut on 23 September. The DA7 made its debut flight on 27 January this year. The sixth aircraft, DA5, is scheduled to fly tomorrow, fitted with the ECR90 radar that will be so crucial to the Eurofighter's effectiveness. The seventh should fly by the end of this month. The EJ200 engine will power the last two aircraft, and is already flying in three aircraft.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to Eurofighter many times in the past. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who said that we must continue to emphasise that Eurofighter is an incredible aircraft. It is simply the most capable multi-role combat

aircraft ever built. I am happy to take this opportunity to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly as yesterday I was able to sit in the cockpit of DA4 during a visit to British Aerospace at Warton. It will not only be a potent air superiority fighter, replacing the RAF's current fleet of Tornado F3s, but will be extremely capable in the air-to-ground role that is currently filled by Jaguar.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for his felicitous remarks. He may recall that during the debate I mentioned reports that Germany was considering acquiring 40 Eurofighters in the multi-role form. Has the Ministry of Defence considered that option?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to suggest that we could buy a further 70 aircraft to fulfil that role. However, that decision does not need to be taken yet, and we have decided to take the 232, which will be the keystone of the RAF's future capability.
The aircraft represents the latest advances in aerospace and avionic technology, and the industries of the United Kingdom and of the other partners can take great pride in their achievements. Through Eurofighter, we have maintained our great history of ground-breaking aerospace programmes. In the air superiority role, a key armament for Eurofighter will be the future medium-range air-to-air missile. We are presently evaluating responses to the invitation to tender, and I hope to take a decision on the way ahead in the near future.
In December, I announced that we had decided to undertake a feasibility study into a future offensive air system. The Tornado GR1 force—which is being upgraded to GR4 standard—will, in combination with the new weapons systems being procured, continue to provide a long-range power projection and air interdiction capability well into the next century. The study will examine a range of options for maintaining this capability beyond the planned withdrawal date of the GR4 in the second decade of the new millennium.
A future offensive air system would be in RAF service until the second half of the next century. By taking a long-term view, we can ensure that the RAF has the capabilities it requires to undertake its vital tasks. The RAF is better equipped than ever before, and it is continuing to benefit from massive investment in new systems.
I was heartened by the recent comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North about being prepared to honour contracts. I was also heartened, to an extent, by his comment on Eurofighter. However, we have not yet placed a contract with Eurofighter, and I was disappointed that he did not say that he would exempt it from the security review. Many of my hon. Friends have raised the review issue in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman has made no commitment to exempt the Eurofighter—that hugely important aircraft—from such a review. Unless the


Labour party can come clean about that review and about where the "painful consequences" described by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I am winding up.

Mr. O'Neill: That is no excuse; will he give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very clear that if the Minister or any other hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the other hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Member for South Shields has himself stated that there would be "painful consequences" from a defence review, and we need to know where those "painful consequences" would cut most deep.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, now that he has been fed his lines by the hon. Member for Clackmannan.

Dr. Reid: I do not want to confuse the situation, because I have already made a pretty clear statement, which the Secretary of State can read tomorrow in Hansard. I shall merely ask the Minister a question, to which I know the answer. Will he tell us whether Eurofighter was excluded from the Government's review, "Options for Change"?

Mr. Arbuthnot: We had not made any decision to buy 232. However, now that we have, we are promising a period of stability. We can promise a period of stability, whereas the Labour party promises a strategic defence review. Labour's defence review is a policy that dare not

speak its name, because it is the political skulk of the century. It is a policy mask, behind which Labour Front Benchers try to hide from Labour Back Benchers, who are desperate to cut defence, and who would like to cut defence spending to the bone. We know that that is why the Labour party is promising a defence review.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Arbuthnot: No; I am winding up.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way? We have plenty of time.

Mr. Arbuthnot: We have had plenty of time for the hon. Gentleman to speak. I will give way to him one last time, but he must tell us what he proposes to leave in his defence review and what he proposes to leave out.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the Conservatives will not cut the defence budget outlined for the next two years? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee, as the shadow Chancellor has?

Mr. Arbuthnot: It is perfectly clear that, next year and the year after, we plan to keep the defence budget exactly the same as it is, and that, the year after that, we plan to increase it a little. The hon. Gentleman could not say that, because he has promised the instability which would be caused by a defence review. He knows that the instability that the Labour party would offer the RAF is precisely the opposite of what it wants.
The RAF is better equipped now than it has ever been, and it is continuing to benefit from massive investment in new systems. We have a world class Air Force, with world class personnel and equipment, and we are already taking the action necessary to ensure that it remains so in the next millennium.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

St. Margaret's Hospital, Great Barr

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Mr. Bruce George: I suppose I should apologise to my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), for not participating in the debate on the Royal Air Force but, for the moment, the defence of the realm takes second place to the defence of the green belt in my constituency.
It is with considerable pleasure, and relief, that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), is responding to this short debate. Books are prefaced by acknowledgements and dedications; speeches in this place are unfortunately not. If they were, I would like Hansard to record a subtitle to this debate: "St. Margaret's hospital: the continuing fight to preserve our heritage and the green belt". If it were possible further to dedicate a speech, I would dedicate it to those fighting for that just cause.
I am pleased that the Under-Secretary is responding for two, or perhaps three, reasons. First, he responded very sympathetically to an Adjournment debate on the same subject two years and one week ago, so I have a sense of deja vu. Secondly. I do not want to damage his political reputation, but he is a decent guy. Thirdly, he speaks with knowledge not only of planning law in relation to the green belt, but of the site in question.
I did not take umbrage when, during our previous debate on the subject, the Under-Secretary said:
It is no exaggeration to say that Walsall is not over-endowed with properties and parklands of great historical and architectural interest."—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 253. c. 586.]
He was right. This may be a military analogy but what you have, you hold, and I do not want to see the six grade II* listed buildings in the borough of Walsall reduced to five, which is a real possibility—indeed, a probability unless something is done quickly.
Unfortunately, despite the Minister's and my best efforts in early 1995, no one appears to have paid a blind bit of notice. Great Barr hall continues to deteriorate, and that predatory body—the former West Midlands regional health authority—slapped in a planning application for the so-called Male Homes site. When it has kicked out the last patients from St. Margaret's hospital in a few weeks' time, no doubt another planning application will be made, perhaps for high-class housing, on what is called the "horseshoe" site.
I desperately hope that the Department of the Environment will try again to protect the estate, which encompasses almost 313 acres and Great Barr hall, the jewel in the crown. The hall and the estate are far too valuable in terms of heritage and potential suitable uses to be seen as mere plots of land for the building of houses and the making of big bucks.
I will not describe the site or Great Barr hall nor eulogise them because that was done in a previous debate, but I visited the site as recently as last Friday. Having seen the photograph that I gave him, I am sure that the Minister will understand why I am so concerned. He will have seen a security wire about as defensively secure as the England batsmen on tour—I was going to say even against such weak opposition but, given the Minister's antipodean background, I thought that might offend him.
The Minister will have seen from the photograph the dilapidated state of Great Barr hall. Despite some remedial patchwork, it is still vulnerable to the elements and the vandals, but the biggest threat to the future—such as it is—of this grade II* listed building comes from those who would see it deteriorate to such an extent that the bulldozers roll in—and there would go the building and perhaps the beautiful surrounding parkland and lake, whose construction and design involved some of the great men of the past such as Sir Gilbert Scott, Humphrey Repton, Shenstone and Nash.
I can never forgive those responsible in the regional health authority for selling the hall and surrounding land to a man like David Worth whose name mockingly adorns the vandalised temporary building in the photograph which I have given the Minister. The land and property that he bought for speculative purposes—he is now bankrupt—is now owned by Midland bank and the receivers are Coopers and Lybrand. The bank lost a lot of money, as did many of my constituents. Not only did the bank lose money, but it cannot sell the property. Indeed, it may cost the bank more money to repair the buildings. Nobody is interested in buying the deteriorating building as it is seen as a financial liability.
I look to the Minister and the Department of the Environment to protect the public interest against the goths at the gate who pose a continuing threat to the hall and estate. Some might ask why the estate needs further ministerial protection. Why am I asking the Minister for help again? Why did I request an Adjournment debate? Is not there enough protection for Great Barr hall and the estate? People might suggest that the property is protected as a green-belt site. Is it not in the Beacon regional park? Is it not part of the Great Barr conservation area? Is it not in the Forest of Mercia forest plan?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Mr. George: I had forgotten that procedure, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was temporarily embarrassed at the prospect of having to finish half-way through my speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It does seem somewhat excessive, but it is the present rule.

Mr. George: I cannot duck history.
Are not the duckery and the lakes a site of importance for nature conservation? Are not three areas of the estate protected as ancient woodland? Is not the hall a grade II* listed building that occupies land included on English Heritage's "Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest"?
People might also ask whether the Great Barr hall and estate have the protection of Walsall council's urban development plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State. Did not English Heritage, in a recent "Building at Risk" survey, conclude that the building was derelict and at risk? The building also falls into English Heritage's category 1—the highest risk—because it is empty, with temporary roofing, is subject to vandalism, theft, dry rot and rain, and has zero security. Is not the site protected as a site of importance for nature conservation? Is there not a Great Barr Hall action group founded to give public support to the future of the hall?
Some might even ask, "Did not that nice Sir Paul Beresford give his support to the property in a parliamentary debate?" He said to me during the previous debate:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, while he is watching closely over one shoulder of those responsible, the Government, conscious of their responsibilities for the green belt, for historic buildings and the historic parkland and for the overall situation, are looking closely over the other."—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 588.]
Do not the recent planning policy guidance documents—PPG 2 annex C, "Future of major developed sites in the Green Belt" and PPG 15—warn off potential developers and destroyers of the green belt? Did not the West Midlands regional forum of local authorities say that there was no need to build houses in the green belt to meet housing requirements for the next century, confirming the joint housing land study for Walsall, which identified sufficient land for building houses for nearly 15 years? Does not section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lay down specific protection? Have not inspectors visited Walsall and confirmed the need to retain the area as a green belt site?
With all that protection in place, some might ask why I want to raise the subject in an Adjournment debate this evening. Regrettably, as I said in the previous debate
Walsall council's record with regard to defending the green belt is far from scintillating, but it is not one of total indifference."—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 585.]
I am afraid that that relative optimism was misplaced. The local appeals committee of the main planning committee met last week and gave the green light to a developer, E. and K. Hill, to build houses on green belt land off Skip lane. I do not expect the Minister to respond to this point, but that decision was bizarre, contrary to professional advice, in direct contradiction of the council's unitary development plan and strategic policy statement. It is against all opposition and against the interests of the green belt.
The solicitors representing the builders argued that the green belt land was needed to build on. As I said earlier, that is not true. I hope that eventually the Department of the Environment will knock on the head those who argue that the green belt land is needed for housing. I refer the Minister to a letter that I received a few years ago from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), when he was at the Department of the Environment. He gave me an unequivocal assurance that the Government are committed to a strong green belt policy that allows development only in special circumstances. These are not special circumstances.
I am worried that the green light given to development on the land off Skip lane could be used as a precedent for developing land at Great Barr hall and the surrounding area. I have little faith in the planning committee. How can I be sure that it will not succumb to pressure from the former regional health authority, which has applied to build on the Male Homes site? No doubt another application will be submitted in the not too distant future to make use of the redundant hospital buildings on the so-called "horseshoe" site.
The Skip lane decision is so contrary to what the Department of the Environment stands for that at the end of the debate I shall hand formally to the Minister a letter

to the Secretary of State asking him to use his legal power to review the decision, which contravenes the urban development plan. The Department of the Environment must be informed. I am informing the Department, perhaps before Walsall council does. I am telling the Minister publicly about the outrageous decision that I hope will be reversed.
I desperately hope that there is still a majority on the planning committee prepared to undo the potential damage to the environment. If the proposals to build on the green belt go through, E. and K. Hill will no doubt put in a further planning application for building work on a similar site that it has. A precedent will have been established. Those who live in the green belt and have put up unauthorised buildings will seek to have that act legitimised, and may put up more buildings. No doubt the NHS executive will pick up the tarnished mantle of the regional health authority and resume the charge on the St. Margaret's hospital site in a few years. Our predecessors, in their wisdom, divided the urban sprawl that is Birmingham, Walsall and Sandwell with a green belt. That protection could be destroyed and the area could be swamped by houses, leaving no discernible boundary between the three authorities.
What is to be done? Great Barr hall, the apex of the site, must be made secure and the decline stabilised. The owners should be billed for the appropriate remedial work. I am told that the building is deteriorating. It is restorable, but for how long? Current estimates set the cost of minimal essential works at £20,000. Those works would make the shell sound, keep out the elements and make it more attractive to a potential buyer. As I said earlier, some work has been done, but it has not been done to a sufficiently high standard. The council should get much tougher. If the Midland bank does not agree to make the necessary repairs, I shall ask the Secretary of State to intervene and serve a repairs notice under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Failing that, I shall call on the Secretary of State to acquire the building and land compulsorily under section 47 of that Act.
Walsall council has tried to bring about a comprehensive approach to the estate so that it can be treated as a single entity. The NHS executive owns two large sections and the Midland bank owns the historic buildings and 156 acres. Could not the Department of the Environment act as honest broker, inviting all the interested parties to a meeting? That would include the Government, Walsall council, the NHS executive, the Midland bank—the listening bank; I hope that it listens—Coopers and Lybrand, working on behalf of the bank, local, regional and national environmental groups, such as the Great Barr action group, which I founded, and English Heritage. They should bring all those people together for a brainstorming session under the auspices of the Minister or his representative. That could well lead to progress. As part of the process, an intermediary—perhaps someone in authority who is familiar with all the documentation and feasibility studies—could provide some guidance as to what would be feasible in respect of such a large site and what is in the public interest.
Thirdly, I urge Walsall council to consider investing a little money in conducting its own feasibility study on how the site might best be developed. Having done that, perhaps the council should approach the heritage fund. I can think of few more worthy recipients of such funding.
I am not inflexible—there has to be some give and take—but I cannot acquiesce to a series of buildings on a green-belt site. Let us put this treasure to an appropriate use. I trust that the Department of the Environment will reassure the public that the Government have the best interests of the site at heart.
Before I conclude, I wish to place on record my unhappiness with the treatment of one patient, John Mayes, a convicted child offender, who absconded on 25 September 1996. The police caught him and returned him to his previous accommodation. He has not done a runner subsequently, nor has the community health trust been able to find him suitable secure accommodation. There must therefore be a shortage of such accommodation in the west midlands. As the hospital is closing fairly soon, I hope that he will be found somewhere suitable. I have discussed my remarks with my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who are in agreement.
Finally, I appeal again to the Department of the Environment to facilitate the reconciliation of all affected parties to bring about the necessary change to achieve the best solution for the public, for Great Barr hall and for the estate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech. I was intrigued by his reference to cricket. As hon. Members may know, a cricket match is currently being played in the Antipodes. I understand that the score is 87 for seven, which looks quite good for the English team. The last man is not in yet, however, and as those who follow cricket know, that could be significant. I have always felt that New Zealand sports teams were charitable and this could be a charitable show.
It is usual to congratulate hon. Members on raising an Adjournment debate, but today's subject is very sad. The hon. Member and I would have preferred not to have had the debate and for the problem to have been sorted out.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the whole estate under discussion is designated green belt. Planning policy guidance 2—the relevant guidance—has been tightened up and emphasises its special characteristics and its need for protection. That is recognised in the unitary development plan for Walsall, which provides considerable protection. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, I must be cautious.
There has been some progress. Development plan policies require only that the site of St. Margaret's hospital building should have a planning brief of the proposed variety. However—this needs careful consideration—there is nothing to stop the local authority carrying out a full-scale study on the protection of the building.
Great Barr hall is a grade II* listed building. It is situated very close to the parts of the hospital that are subject to redevelopment proposals. It is important that the proposals protect the building from harm. Likewise, the effect on the very fine parkland has to be taken into careful account.
Progress depends on having the right sort of developer, with the right sort of backing to develop that which should be developed, sympathetically, with some give and take, as the hon. Gentleman has said. It is sad that, so far, no buyer has come forward for the hall and the park. However, I understand that considerable interest is still being shown by developers and others. We must hope, anticipate, and try to ensure, that a sympathetic application for offices, leisure facilities and a golf course is submitted. Such a proposal was looked at before but has unfortunately been withdrawn without any further progress. As the hon. Gentleman has said, no proposal has at the moment reached the planning application stage.
The Government's advisers have been trying to work closely with the owner, the official receiver and the local authority to resolve some of the problems. The photograph of the protection—or lack of protection—of Great Barr hall calls into question the local authority's behaviour. The hon. Gentleman's description is an under-estimate of the lack of protection. Looking at the photograph, one can see that the protection consists of one high barbed wire, which would not stop anything progressing under it. I cannot think of anything at all that would be stopped by it.
Since the last debate, there has been some progress, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am advised that, in conjunction with the local authority and English Heritage, the present owner, through the official receiver, has arranged for some work to be carried out that has arrested the rate of structural decline. "Arrested the rate"—the speed—at which the structure of the building is declining is a sad way of putting it. I have clearly carefully chosen those words, and I hope that the local authority recognises that. We ought to consider it carefully.
In addition, the problems of the deterioration of the interior remain. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that a long-term solution needs not only to be found, but to be found fairly promptly. A number of potential buyers have been in discussion with the local authority and English Heritage, and I understand that further meetings are arranged for the near future.
Reference was made to the quaintly named Male Homes site to the north of the hall. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the subject of a detailed planning application for housing development. I am surprised that it has taken Walsall borough council quite so long to determine the application. Discussions seem to be extremely protracted, which could be a reflection on either the sensitivity of the location or the local authority. I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to put quietly his point on that, but I rather suspect that he and I are in agreement.
The Government's adviser, English Heritage, has been consulted and I understand that it has some remaining concerns about the proposal, which means that I cannot progress with further discussion on it, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. The decision on the application is for the local planning authority. The applicant has the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for the Environment should the permission be refused. I therefore need to be mindful of any further comments on the application.
The national health service executive, the owners of the St. Margaret's site—the so-called "Horseshoe"—has commissioned a consultants' report for development of the whole site. It has been submitted to the local authority, which is considering it. Hopefully, it will consider it constructively and move promptly. I hope that that is not a vain hope and that we can get some action. The hospital is of course closing this year, the Great Barr hall is deteriorating and the interior needs protection. We are looking forward to the consultants' report to the NHS, which is expected to lead to a planning application.
At this stage, I cannot say more except that I am attracted to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should look towards progressing, with the Department acting as an honest broker, as he put it. I shall ensure through the Department that the Government, through the regional office in Birmingham, along with English Heritage, do what they can to bring the parties together and get a move on.
I half-facetiously made a comment about the number of listed buildings, grade II or otherwise, in the Walsall area. We must accept the idea that the site is an oasis—an area that needs to be kept and looked after. It is certainly not being looked after at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.